get_alert_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical operational details unclear.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific alert rule'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with a required parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meaning, behavioral context, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'uid' represents (e.g., a unique identifier for the alert rule), its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 ('alert rule'), specifying it retrieves 'detailed information about a specific alert rule'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alert_rules' (which lists multiple) and 'create_alert_rule'/'update_alert_rule'/'delete_alert_rule' (which modify). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule UID), contrast with 'list_alert_rules' for browsing, or specify use cases like troubleshooting or editing. With multiple sibling tools for alert rules, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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