get_baseline_rules

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals key behavioral traits: 'unknown ids raise a not-found error', 'truncated is always false and total is the exact rule count', and 'Read-only — parses local baseline YAML only, no database or network access.' This adds significant context that annotations do not provide, with no contradictions.

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 well-structured: it opens with a bracketed READ marker and purpose, then covers parameter details, return format, behavioral specifics, and usage guidance. While detailed, every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for efficient parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return envelope and item structure, including severity enums. It also covers error handling, performance expectations (truncated false), and resources accessed, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining the parameter's required format ('a baseline id exactly as returned by list_baselines'), providing an example, and noting error behavior. This is far more useful than a schema-only description.

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 opens with '[READ] Return every rule in one compliance baseline', using a specific verb and resource that clearly states what the tool does. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Use after list_baselines to preview what scan_target will check; use list_violations for actual scan findings.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after list_baselines to preview what scan_target will check; use list_violations for actual scan findings.' It names alternative tools and clarifies the intended workflow, making it easy for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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