opencdr_rules_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's "Read-only" sentence adds nothing beyond the structured data. Nothing is said about behavior when the id does not exist, whether lookup is scoped to a workspace, or what openWorldHint=true implies about external data reach.

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?

Three clipped sentences, correctly front-loading the action before the constraints. The middle sentence duplicates the annotation and the third duplicates the enum, so it is slightly redundant, but there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is just barely adequate: it establishes the lookup key and the discriminator but leaves the id format, not-found behavior, and response shape entirely unspecified.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but it only restates the kind enum ("signal" or "correlation") which is already encoded in the schema. The more opaque parameter, rule_id, gets no format, naming, or sourcing guidance at all.

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?

"Get a rule by id" gives a specific verb and resource, which cleanly separates it from sibling opencdr_rules_list. It does not name the sibling or explain the relationship, but the singular-resource nature of the operation is unmistakable.

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 statement of when to use this versus opencdr_rules_list or the ir_* rules-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisite such as needing a rule id obtained from a list call. Usage is only implied by the phrase "by id".

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