lc_get_fp_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read operation ('fetch') but does not disclose required parameters (oid, name), error handling for non-existent rules, or confirm it is non-destructive. Minimal behavioral information beyond the verb.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks mention of what the tool returns (e.g., the rule object). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of many sibling getters, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

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 must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'name' is the rule name for fetching, but 'oid' (likely object/org ID) is left unexplained. Both parameters are required yet only one is addressed, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch one false-positive rule by name', specifying verb (fetch), resource (false-positive rule), and retrieval method (by name). Among siblings like lc_list_fp_rules and lc_preview_set_fp_rule, this distinguishes it as a targeted lookup.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as lc_list_fp_rules for listing all rules or lc_preview_set_fp_rule for creating/updating. The description offers no context for selection.

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