sentinel_analytics_rule_get

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 states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., rule configuration, status). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 complexity of a 'get details' operation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral context, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional guesswork or documentation.

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 has 1 parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'kwargs' should contain (e.g., a rule ID or name), its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving the parameter completely undocumented.

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 the action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific analytics rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'sentinel_analytics_rule_list' or other get tools in the server, missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentinel_analytics_rule_list' for listing rules or other get tools in the server. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a rule identifier, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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