unifi_list_acl_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all ACL (firewall) rules at a site', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at with offset/limit), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all ACL (firewall) rules at a site'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination and filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for effective use. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is lacking.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the filter expression format or typical use cases for offset/limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all ACL (firewall) rules at a site'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_get_acl_rule' (which likely retrieves a single rule) or 'unifi_list_firewall_zones' (which lists different firewall entities), missing full sibling distinction.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'unifi_list_acl_rules' over 'unifi_get_acl_rule' for single-rule retrieval or how it relates to other list tools like 'unifi_list_firewall_zones'. There's only an implied context of listing ACL rules at a site.

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