ise_ers_get_downloadableacl

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. The description reveals nothing beyond the basic get operation — no mention of error behavior when ID is not found, no mention of permissions required, no mention of what fields are returned, and no clarification on whether 404 or empty results are expected for invalid IDs. For a GET-style operation, this minimal disclosure is a notable gap.

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 that delivers the core purpose efficiently. There's no fluff or repetition. The deployment parameter schema text is detailed but belongs to the schema, not the description. The one-line description is appropriately minimal for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like or at least confirm the response structure. It provides none of that. Given there are related tools (ise_ers_list_downloadableacl, ise_ers_search_downloadableacl) that supply IDs, the description could clarify the sourcing of the ID parameter, but doesn't. The tool is minimally functional but leaves important usage questions unanswered.

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 50% (the deployment parameter has a full description, but the id parameter has none beyond being a string). The description adds meaning for 'deployment' via the schema's detailed text (name/slug/number formats), and the 'by ID' phrase clarifies the primary parameter's purpose. However, the id parameter format (e.g., whether it's a UUID or object name) is never explained, which for a CRUD get-by-ID is important context.

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 states 'Get a single Downloadable ACLs (dACLs) object by ID' which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (dACLs), and access method (by ID). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like ise_ers_search_downloadableacl or ise_ers_list_downloadableacl beyond the obvious 'by ID' qualifier, which is somewhat implied by the function name itself.

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. While the 'by ID' qualifier implies it's for fetching a specific object, there's no explicit statement like 'use list for multiple objects' or 'use search when you don't know the ID'. The deployment parameter references ise_list_deployments, which offers some context, but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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