pmg_ruledb_rule_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses this is a read operation ('read') and mentions a config requirement. It does not describe potential side effects (none expected), return format, or authentication details, but the output schema exists, mitigating the need for return value disclosure.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with the most important information (purpose and prerequisite) in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, path, parameter detail. No waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides the API path, parameter semantics, and a prerequisite. For a simple read operation, this is largely complete, though it could mention the output schema's role (e.g., 'returns a rule object with fields defined in the output schema').

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?

The description explicitly adds semantic detail for the 'id_' parameter: 'rule ID (positive integer string, e.g. '100')', which is not present in the input schema (where 'id_' has only a title). The 'proximo_target' parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description compensates for the lack of schema documentation on 'id_'.

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 states 'Get a PMG RuleDB rule's configuration (read)', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves configuration data. The verb 'Get' and annotation '(read)' make the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create or update, though the name and context imply it is for reading.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pmg_ruledb_rule_create or pmg_ruledb_rule_update. An agent may not know that this is for reading existing rules rather than modifying them, beyond the inferred purpose.

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