get_required_declaration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get', but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. Adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence for purpose followed by two bullet-like parameter explanations. No redundant information.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters with examples) and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers inputs. The return type is hinted by 'exact declaration and paste-ready snippet', and the output schema handles details.

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 0%, but the description provides clear examples and default behavior for both parameters (e.g., 'apple.rr.user_defaults' for rule_id, 'CA92.1' for reason_code), adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states it retrieves 'the exact declaration and a paste-ready snippet for a rule,' which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_api_declaration or preflight_scan.

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 advises that rule_id comes from preflight_scan output, implying usage after that step. It also explains reason_code tailoring, giving context for use, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use.

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