get_business_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Fetch,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention any side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether rule revisions/locking matter. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly states the action and target resource, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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 fetch tool with two well-described parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: it retrieves a single rule's definition. It doesn't explicitly mention that this is read-only, but that's implied by 'Fetch.' The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both parameters having descriptive text (e.g., rule_id is 'The rule UUID' and ruleset_id notes it's the parent UUID, not name). The tool description adds no additional information about how the parameters are used or formatted, so the schema already provides the necessary semantics. 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 clearly uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a single rule's definition from a SAS Business Rules rule set.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_business_rules, which lists rules, and create/update/delete_business_rule. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 for retrieving one specific rule by ID but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_business_rules or any other rule-related tools. It lacks explicit context about when this is the right choice, like 'Use this when you need a rule's full definition by UUID.'

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