unifi_get_acl_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the rule doesn't exist. The description is too basic for a tool that likely interacts with network security settings.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information the ACL rule contains, the format of the returned data, or potential error responses. Given this is a network security tool in a complex system, more context about the rule structure or typical use cases would be helpful.

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%, with both parameters ('siteId' and 'aclRuleId') clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with 'aclRuleId' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a specific ACL rule by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ACL rule'), and specifies it's for a specific rule identified by ID. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_acl_rules' or 'unifi_update_acl_rule' beyond the basic operation type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'unifi_list_acl_rules' for listing multiple rules or 'unifi_update_acl_rule' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing to know the rule ID beforehand.

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