get_validation_rules

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. It communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and indicates the kinds of fields returned. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the result is a list of all rules or filtered by some default.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the key content of the result efficiently. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema. The description says what the tool returns (validation rules including formulas, error messages, and active status), which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could add details about output shape or edge cases, but for this complexity level the description is largely 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 already describes objectName as 'API name of the object', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or behavior beyond restating that the tool applies to 'an object'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('validation rules for an object'), and the content scope ('formulas, error messages, and active status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fields, get_field_details, or find_relationships, which deal with different metadata.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but the description does not help an agent decide between get_validation_rules and other metadata-listing tools in the sibling set.

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