pmg_ruledb_rule_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It declares 'READ-ONLY', which is a critical behavioral hint. It does not detail error conditions, permissions beyond config, rate limits, or what happens if the rule ID is invalid. Given the absence of annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of three sentences, each conveying essential information with no fluff. It starts with the purpose and key requirement, then the return value, and finally references sibling tools and parameter source. This is efficient and well-structured.

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 need not detail return structure. It covers the tool's purpose, configuration requirement, parameter source, and related tools. It lacks error handling notes, but for a simple read-only getter, this is acceptable. The description is mostly complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that id_ should come from pmg_ruledb_rules_list, which provides provenance beyond the schema's description. For proximo_target, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Overall, the added context earns a 4.

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 tool retrieves a single rule's configuration from the PMG RuleDB, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('rule's configuration'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_ruledb_rule_from_list by indicating those are for retrieving specific object lists.

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 clear usage context: it is read-only, requires PROXIMO_PMG_* config, and the id_ comes from pmg_ruledb_rules_list. It also references sibling tools for getting individual object lists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling references imply the distinctions.

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