lc_get_integrity_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'fetch' which implies a read operation, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., not found), or any side effects.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous content. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context about the purpose of the 'oid' parameter or the return value without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-sentence description, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent would lack understanding of what the 'oid' parameter represents, the format of the returned rule, and any potential errors or constraints.

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%, and the description adds minimal semantic value. It mentions fetching 'by name' but does not explain the 'oid' parameter (likely organization ID) or clarify that 'name' is the rule's name. The purpose of required parameters is largely implicit.

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 (fetch) and the resource (one integrity monitoring rule by name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lc_list_integrity_rules' (which lists multiple) and 'lc_delete_integrity_rule' (which deletes).

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list rules first) or any context for when fetching a single rule is appropriate.

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