show_rule

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It merely states the purpose without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (no examples, sections, or formatting). It's not overly verbose, but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, how to interpret details, or any context for the rule_key. The gaps leave the agent underinformed.

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 should clarify the parameter 'rule_key'. It does not explain what a rule key is, how to obtain it, or its format. The description adds no semantic value over the raw schema.

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 'Get details of a SonarQube rule' clearly identifies the action (get details) and resource (SonarQube rule), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_sonar_issues or list_quality_gates. However, 'details' is vague, lacking specifics about which fields are returned, so not a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if the agent needs to list multiple rules, search_sonar_issues would be more appropriate. The description omits any context about prerequisites or filtering by rule_key.

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