get_rule

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval, and 'including conditions and actions' tells the agent what content to expect. It does not discuss error handling or permissions, but those are less critical for a simple get-by-id read tool.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and an efficient Args line. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. The description covers the essential call purpose and ID discovery for a single-parameter tool. The rule_id type ambiguity is the main gap keeping this from a perfect score.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining rule_id as a 'Numeric rule ID' and pointing to list_rules for discovery. However, the schema declares rule_id as type string, so 'Numeric' is ambiguous and could mislead an agent into supplying an integer rather than a string.

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?

States 'Get full details of an automation rule including conditions and actions' – a specific retrieval action with a clear resource and content scope. The phrase 'full details' and the mention of conditions/actions clearly differentiate it from list_rules and other get_* siblings.

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?

Provides actionable usage context in the Args section: 'use list_rules to discover IDs,' telling the agent how to obtain a valid rule_id before calling. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions beyond list_rules, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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