Get Rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Show' is fully consistent with those. The description adds the domain context 'cloud validation check' but discloses nothing extra about not-found behavior, error handling, or response shape. With annotations covering safety, a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 seven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, contains zero filler, and conveys the essential operation completely. The description earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 get-by-id tool, the description is nearly complete: output schema covers return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and schema covers all parameters. The only minor gap is unstated behavior for invalid or missing IDs, which is a small omission for a read-only retrieval tool of this simplicity.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds 'by id', which reinforces ruleId as the lookup key, but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is correct given full 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a well-defined resource ('one cloud validation check by id'). It clarifies that 'rule' means a cloud validation check, which removes domain ambiguity. The 'by id' scoping distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_search and rules_categories without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for fetching a single known rule, and the sibling list offers search/category alternatives. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over rules_search, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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