get_business_rules

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by noting that script bodies are redacted for credentials and explaining default parameter behaviors, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It is efficient but not overly concise; a few sentences could be trimmed, but overall it's well-organized and readable.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema. The description explains the return structure (table, count, total_count, etc.) and parameter behavior, covering essential aspects. Slight gaps (e.g., explaining active_only defaults) exist, but overall it's complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by describing each parameter in the Args section: table, active_only, include_scripts, limit, offset. It explains defaults and purpose, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 business rules from a CMDB table, specifying the operations (insert, update, delete, query). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on CI, discovery, or other aspects.

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 explains when to set include_scripts=True for reviewing logic and notes token efficiency. It implies usage context for business rule inspection but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state 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.