GetAlertRule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data, handles errors, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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, efficient phrase in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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?

Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single rule object, a list, or metadata), any prerequisites, or error conditions. For a tool in a system with many similar 'get' operations, more context is needed to distinguish it properly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'Id' documented as '自定义告警规则ID' (custom alert rule ID). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra value.

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 '获取自定义监控告警规则' (Get custom monitoring alert rules) clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'custom monitoring alert rules', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ListAlertRules' or 'GetAlertMessage', leaving ambiguity about what specifically this tool retrieves versus those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ListAlertRules' (likely for listing multiple rules) and 'GetAlertMessage' (for alert messages), there's no indication whether this tool is for retrieving a single rule by ID, all rules, or something else. The lack of context makes it unclear when this specific tool is appropriate.

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