incident_edr_rules__get_edr_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. Beyond that, the description adds only the HTTP path and nothing about what a missing/unknown UUID returns, whether the response is the full EDR rule object, or how the local fields projection interacts with the result.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the content is padded by repeating the same idea twice ('Get EDR rule' and 'Get [EDR rule] details'). The only unique information is the endpoint path, which could have been stated more usefully alongside scope or return behavior.

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?

For a simple single-resource read with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema present, the description should say something about the returned object or error behavior, and it does not.

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%, so the schema already explains both ruleUuid (EdrRule reference) and the optional fields projection. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or caveats beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 says 'Get EDR rule' and repeats 'Get [EDR rule] details', which largely restates the tool name rather than adding specificity. It does add the underlying endpoint (GET /v2/edr-rules/{ruleUuid}), which confirms this is a single-resource fetch keyed by UUID, but it never contrasts with the sibling incident_edr_rules__list_edr_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_edr_rules or any of the other get_* siblings. The only implied usage is 'you have a ruleUuid and want one rule', which an agent must infer from the name and schema alone.

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