security-get-item-acl

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scoping context ('rules set on the item itself'), clarifying this is item-level ACL rather than effective/inherited permissions, but discloses nothing about output structure or permissions required.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the em-dash clause plus the narrowing sentence both earn their place. No filler or repetition.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers scope and result-narrowing adequately. It omits any description of the returned ACL entry structure, but no output schema exists to carry that, so the gap is minor.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a usage framing for identity/filter ('narrow... to one account'), which is marginal beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('access control list (ACL) of a Sitecore item'), and the clause 'the rules set on the item itself' narrows the scope helpfully. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g. security-set-item-acl / security-test-item-acl) to differentiate, so it falls short of the top band.

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 only guidance is 'Narrow it with identity or filter to one account,' which is parameter-level advice rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over security-test-item-acl or the set counterpart, nor any prerequisites.

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