GetDataQualityRule

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. The description only states it queries details, with no information about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 ('查询质量规则详情') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about quality rules, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 one parameter ('Id' with description '规则ID' - rule ID), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 '查询质量规则详情' (Query quality rule details) states a clear verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('质量规则详情' - quality rule details), but it's vague about what 'details' includes and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ListDataQualityRules' or 'GetDataQualityRuleTemplate'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or content of the returned details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'ListDataQualityRules' (for listing multiple rules) or 'GetDataQualityRuleTemplate' (for templates). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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