unifi_get_acl_rule

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

The description only indicates a read operation ('Get'), assuming it is safe. With no annotations, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, or the nature of 'detailed information' (e.g., whether it returns associated data or just metadata).

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It directly conveys the purpose without waste.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not hint at the structure or completeness of the returned information, which could be valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool meets its needs.

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% for the single parameter rule_id, already explaining it is a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ACL rule', indicating it retrieves detailed information about a specific rule. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like unifi_list_acl_rules or unifi_get_acl_rule_ordering, though the phrase 'a specific ACL rule' implies a single entity retrieval.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is intended for retrieving details of a known rule_id, while unifi_list_acl_rules is for listing all rules.

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