get_security_group_rule

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding no contradiction. However, it provides no additional behavioral context beyond 'Get details', such as not-found behavior, return structure, or required permissions. With the annotation covering safety, the description meets the minimum expected value.

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, complete sentence with no wasted words. 'Get details of a specific security group rule' is concise, front-loaded, and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 simple get-by-ID operation, complete schema descriptions, and read-only annotation, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool. It lacks only explicit guidance on related list/get alternatives, but the core operation is well-defined.

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%, with each parameter (datacenter_id, security_group_id, rule_id, depth) already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no semantic context about how these parameters relate, so it does not exceed the baseline for 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 ('Get') and resource ('security group rule') with the modifier 'specific', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_security_group_rules and get_security_group. It precisely identifies the object of the operation.

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 implies usage when a single security group rule's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention is made of list_security_group_rules for listing or when not to use this tool.

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