get_origin_rules

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only fetch and the parenthetical adds useful context about what origin rules do, but the description does not state the return shape, whether it returns all rules for the zone, or any auth or rate-limit considerations.

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 short sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical earns its place by clarifying what origin rules are.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it, but with no output schema it leaves the response shape unstated and does not clarify list vs. single-rule semantics. It is adequate but has clear gaps around return behavior and alternatives.

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?

The only parameter, zone_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'The zone ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('origin rules for a zone'), and gives clarifying examples ('override origin server, host header, etc.') that distinguish it from sibling rule-retrieval tools like get_url_rewrite_rules or get_request_header_rules. It is not a tautology and clearly identifies the resource being accessed.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The zone-scoped phrasing implies the tool should be used when inspecting origin-rule configuration, but an agent is not told how this differs from related getters like get_zone_rulesets or get_ruleset.

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