get_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: the return is a 'Trimmed rule dict' (indicating processed/truncated output) and include_raw toggles the untrimmed Graph payload. However, it omits failure behavior, permission/auth needs, and what 'trimmed' concretely removes, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then a tidy Args block, then a Returns line. Each line earns its place and provides information absent from the schema, with no filler or repetition.

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 (3 flat parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return shape. The 'Trimmed rule dict' return note is slightly vague and error behavior is unaddressed, but for a low-complexity get-by-id tool the essentials are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: rule_id is identified as a Graph rule id, mailbox gains format (email or user id) and purpose (shared mailboxes), and include_raw is explained as exposing the raw Graph payload. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, names, and defaults.

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?

"Get a single inbox mail rule by id" states a specific verb, resource, and scope in one sentence. The qualifier "single ... by id" distinguishes it from the sibling list_rules and from the mutating rule tools (create_rule, update_rule, delete_rule) without needing to open any schema.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It never mentions that list_rules should be used to enumerate rules, that a rule_id must first be obtained elsewhere, or when the mailbox parameter is warranted. The only usage-adjacent hint is buried in the mailbox parameter description ('for shared mailboxes'), which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance.

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