get_business_rule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a behavioral constraint not in annotations: the tool requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, which is valuable context for invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and a critical prerequisite with no redundant or extraneous wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned (full details and script body) and a key precondition. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter sys_id is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Get), resource (business rule), and specific output (full details and script body). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_business_rules, which only list, and create/update_business_rule, which mutate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a key prerequisite (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over list_business_rules or other alternatives, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.