or_guardrail_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, which is supported by the context. It discloses the fields returned, but does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid id) or authentication requirements. For a simple get, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does, what parameter to use, and what fields are returned. It does not explain error behavior, but that is less critical given the simplicity. Siblings provide context for differentiation.

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%, and the schema parameter description ('Guardrail id from or_guardrails_list') already defines the parameter well. The tool description adds only 'by id' which is redundant. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so baseline 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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'details of one guardrail by id', clearly distinguishing from siblings like or_guardrails_list (list all) and or_guardrails_assignments. It also lists the specific fields returned, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for fetching details of a single guardrail, with the id from the list. It implicitly differentiates from or_guardrails_list (for listing all) and assignments. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is fairly clear without exclusions.

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