discoveryrule_get

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation's safety profile is known. The description adds conceptual background but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, count mode, or filtering side effects. There is no contradiction with the 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 primary purpose sentence is front-loaded and immediately tells an agent what the tool does. The two followup sentences are concise and briefly explain why these rules matter, without unnecessary verbosity. Still, it is not a fully crafted operational definition because it omits sibling differentiation.

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?

Considering the tool has 11 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the domain and type of the return, but it does not provide guidance on common usage patterns, such as selecting by hostid or templateid, or calling out the potential confusion with related rules. An agent can likely proceed, but some context is left to the schema and judgment.

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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for nearly all 11 parameters, covering about 91% of them with documentation for limit, offset, search, hostids, itemids, sortField, etc. The description itself does not need to repeat parameter-level information because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with a clear verb and object: 'Get discovery rules from Zabbix.' The following sentences provide relevant background on what discovery rules are, but the description does not distinguish this tool from similarly named siblings like drule_get or itemprototype_get, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The background about dynamic host and item management gives domain context, but an agent would not know when to choose this tool over the many other retrieval and discovery-related sibling tools.

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