get_mnm_rule

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation, but does not disclose return structure, requiring permissions, error behavior, or any other operational traits. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the name itself.

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 concise sentence that states the verb and resource with no superfluous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter getter with full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, the agent is left without any detail about the response shape or how to obtain a valid rule_id, and no mention of list_mnm_rules as the discovery path.

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 coverage is 100%, and both account_id and rule_id have simple descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already documents the necessary parameters adequately, so a baseline score 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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a Magic Network Monitoring rule'), so an agent can identify what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_mnm_rules, though the singular 'a rule' implies retrieving one specific rule.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_mnm_rules or get_mnm_config. The description simply states the operation without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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