ise_ers_get_sgacl

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states only a read action (Get), but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is not found, whether errors occur for invalid IDs, what response format is returned, or any permissions/deployment requirements beyond the deployment parameter hint in the schema.

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?

A single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. No wasted words or repetition. Adequately front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimal but does state the core operation. However, given the sibling tool family (search vs get vs list), the description could more clearly position this within the retrieval hierarchy and explain what a 'successful' response looks like or how to handle not-found cases.

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 coverage is 50% (id is undocumented in the schema while deployment has a rich description). The description confirms 'id' is required for lookup, adding minimal meaning, but it doesn't explain what format the id should be in (UUID vs numeric) since schema coverage is only partial.

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 single Security Group ACLs (SGACLs) object by ID' uses a specific verb (Get) with a clear resource (SGACL object) and distinct retrieval method (by ID). It differentiates from sibling tools like ise_ers_list_sgacl and ise_ers_search_sgacl, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies this is for retrieving one specific object, distinguishing it from list/search variants, but there's no explicit statement of when to use this vs ise_ers_search_sgacl or ise_ers_list_sgacl. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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