automod_get_rule

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the return payload: 'name and trigger metadata remain raw user-authored data; untrusted_text provides a separately fenced copy.' This discloses data fidelity nuances beyond the safety annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact and well-structured with 'Purpose', 'When to use', and 'Returns' sections. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no redundant phrasing. Every sentence serves a functional role and the overall length is appropriate.

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 read operation with two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, and return shape nuances. It does not need to elaborate on return values beyond the note about raw data and untrusted_text, since an output schema exists.

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 both guild_id and rule_id having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Fetch a single AutoMod rule' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like automod_list_rules, automod_modify_rule, automod_create_rule, and automod_delete_rule. The purpose is unambiguous and precisely scoped to a single rule retrieval.

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 a clear usage context: 'Inspect rule config before editing.' This implies a specific workflow and aligns with the sibling automod_modify_rule tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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