get-security-rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation ('get') but does not describe any side effects, permission requirements, or the nature of 'detailed information'. It is minimally adequate but lacks specificity.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no superfluous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' entails. It is adequate but could be more precise about the return structure or fields. The tool is simple, so completeness is moderate.

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% (ruleId is documented in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the work.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific security monitoring detection rule. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('security monitoring detection rule'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-security-rules.

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, such as when not to use it (e.g., when listing rules is more appropriate) or prerequisites like needing a rule ID. No context on exclusion of other tools.

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