drule_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds background about what network discovery rules do, but does not disclose additional tool-specific behaviors such as pagination details, permission requirements, or rate limits. The added context is useful but not deeply behavioral.

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 definition is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The two background sentences explain the domain, though the second sentence partially repeats the first ('perform network scanning' vs 'scan for active devices...'). Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5, but there is no fluff.

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?

With a rich output schema, strong annotations, and high schema parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete for a read-only fetch tool. It provides enough domain context to clarify what 'drule' means, though it could be more explicit about when to reach for this instead of discoveryrule_get. The remaining gaps are minor.

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 has 89% description coverage, so most parameters already carry sufficient semantics. The tool description adds no per-parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter understanding.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get network discovery rules from Zabbix.' It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like discoveryrule_get by explicitly naming the resource type as 'network discovery (drule) rules' and explaining their scanning purpose.

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 implies usage by defining what network discovery rules are, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as discoveryrule_get or host_get. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so an agent must infer the context from the resource description alone.

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