get_action_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get details'—it doesn't mention response shape, error conditions, or any side effects. With annotations covering the main traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it doesn't explain what 'details' will be returned, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. An agent might not know what to expect from the response, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%: rule_id is described as 'Action rule ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It doesn't clarify the ID type or source, but the schema already provides the essential meaning.

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 'Get details about a specific action rule' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (action rule), and the singular 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling get_action_rules. It is clear but does not elaborate on what 'details' includes, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other get_* 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 implies usage: call when you need details about one action rule, identified by rule_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_action_rules for listing. The context is clear enough for a simple lookup, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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