list_network_acl_listsFetches network ACL lists applied to VPC tiers, with page and page-size parameters to browse results.
List network ACL lists, which are applied to VPC tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 500). Defaults to 50; pass page to fetch more. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. Beyond that the description only supplies the domain fact about VPC tiers; it says nothing about whether results span all VPCs or tenants, how pagination behaves in practice, or what a result item contains, given there is no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it is wasted, though it is short enough that brevity comes at the cost of scope detail.
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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema documentation, the minimal description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is scope disambiguation from the per-VPC sibling, which is the main decision an agent must make when picking this tool.
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 coverage is 100% and both pagination parameters carry their own descriptions (defaults, max, 1-indexing), so the description has no burden here. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented two-parameter surface.
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?
Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('network ACL lists') and adds a domain fact — they are applied to VPC tiers — which helps an agent understand what the objects are. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from the close sibling list_network_acl_lists_by_vpc, so the agent must infer the scope difference from the names alone.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With list_network_acl_lists_by_vpc, get_network_acl_list and list_network_acl_rules in the sibling set, the description never says when this unfiltered list is preferred over the per-VPC variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.