get_identification_rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context by detailing the output structure (JSON with count and identification_rules list including name, applies_to, identifier fields, priority, active status) and the effect of parameters. No contradictions.

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-organized with clear sections for Args and Returns, and is informative without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Optional — omit to list rules for all classes' could be shortened) but overall effective.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers input parameter semantics and output structure adequately. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only, idempotent operation this is acceptable. The presence of an output schema shifts the burden away from describing return values, and the description still provides useful detail.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: table filters by CI class (optional), active_only (defaults to True), limit (1-1000, default 25), offset (pagination). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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 'Get CMDB Identification and Reconciliation Engine (IRE) identification rules' and explains their role in matching incoming data to existing CIs. It specifies the resource (identification rules) and action (get), and the context differentiates it from sibling tools like get_reconciliation_rules.

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 the purpose of identification rules and provides parameter details (e.g., table filter, active_only default). It implies when to use (retrieving matching rules) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, for a straightforward read operation, the guidance is clear.

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