gtt_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('Get details') without explicitly confirming read-only behavior, error conditions, or dependence on an existing rule, leaving important traits implicit.

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, tight sentence with no redundant words. The action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and includes an output schema, so the basic invocation is well-defined. However, the absence of usage guidance, behavioral notes, or any link to sibling GTT tools makes the contextual picture slightly incomplete, though adequate for a trivial lookup.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate but only says 'by id', which merely mirrors the parameter name 'rule_id'. It adds no extra meaning about the ID's format, source, or usage, failing to enrich the schema's minimal definition.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('details of a single GTT rule'), and a qualifier ('by id'), making its action unambiguous. It naturally differentiates from sibling GTT operations like gtt_list, gtt_create_rule, gtt_modify_rule, and gtt_cancel_rule by targeting a single rule's details.

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 phrasing implies usage when a caller possesses a specific GTT rule ID and wants its details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as gtt_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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