get_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns documentation details (what it reports, why it matters, auto-fix capability, configuration) and implies it is a read-only lookup operation. It does not state potential side effects or permissions, but for a documentation retrieval tool, the behavior is clear and appropriately disclosed. The addition of specific return content adds value beyond the name.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence defines the tool's output comprehensively, and the second sentence gives the exact usage trigger. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what content it returns, when to use it, and how it relates to the migration workflow. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's clear enumeration of return contents. Sibling tools are implicitly distinguished, and no critical information is missing.

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%, with both parameters ('ruleId' and 'sql') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but it also does not need to because the schema already provides clear examples and semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full documentation for one MigrationPilot rule'), and enumerates exactly what the documentation includes. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'one rule' and the use case of needing reasoning before rewriting, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Call this when a violation ID appears and you need the reasoning behind it before rewriting a migration.' This provides a clear trigger, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with them. Since it gives a direct use case without exclusions, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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