list_local_service_acl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', which is a read operation, but does not mention any rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or return format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, containing no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It explains what is listed and the context ('device access from WAN/zones'), though it could add more detail about what constitutes a 'local service ACL'.

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?

There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description meets that without any additional detail.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'local service ACL rules', with a parenthetical clarification '(device access from WAN/zones)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_acl_rules' and 'list_firewall_rules'.

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 context that this lists ACL rules for device access from WAN/zones, implying a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like 'list_acl_rules' or any exclusion criteria.

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