get_mail_rule

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. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID, required permissions, or what is returned; for a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the key scoping information front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 single-param getter the description is arguably sufficient, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, an agent gets no safety or error-handling context. Adequate as a minimum but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by ID' confirms the parameter identifies a mail rule, but adds no format, range, or type detail beyond that; a minimal but non-zero contribution.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (Paperless mail rule) scoped to a single entity by ID, which separates it from the sibling list_mail_rules. It is clear but does not explicitly name the alternatives it is distinguished from.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives (e.g., list_mail_rules for discovery, get_mail_account for accounts) are mentioned. The only implied usage is fetching a rule whose ID is already known.

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