get_rules

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate no destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by listing the masking level codes and their meanings, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, with two paragraphs: the first explains the tool's purpose, the second lists masking level references in a clear, structured format. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers essential aspects: what the rules show, the meaning of masking levels. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but given the single parameter and 'view all' nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides a clear description for the only parameter (policy_id), with instructions on usage and encoding. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much; it provides no additional parameter details beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('View all masking rules configured for a specific policy') and the resource ('masking rules for a policy'), with additional detail on what it shows (roles, masking levels, tag values). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_rules, delete_rule, update_rule.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by requiring a policy_id but lacks 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions, such as when to use add_rules or update_rule.

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