get_correlation_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the tool returns a full definition but does not mention idempotency, server targeting implications, or required permissions. The existence of an output schema helps but the description lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about server is slightly unclear ('default active/default') and could be more precise. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema provided), the description covers the core function but omits usage context, behavioral details, and full parameter semantics. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 add meaning. It partially explains 'server' as targeting a configured server with a default of 'active/default', but does not detail acceptable values or behavior. 'rule_id' is not elaborated beyond being a required integer. The description adds some value but not full clarity.

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 the full definition of a correlation rule by ID, mentioning specific fields like 'where/afterEvents/groupBy'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_correlation_rules (which lists summaries) and create/update/delete operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_correlation_rules for a summary or set_correlation_rule_active for status changes. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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