Get ACL policy

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the return is raw HuJSON text with comments and trailing commas preserved, plus an ETag for concurrency-safe updates. It doesn't discuss auth/permission requirements, but it adds real behavioral value.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the most decision-relevant detail (format preservation and the ETag dependency). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself, and it does: raw HuJSON preservation and the ETag. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, tailnet-scoped call.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (current ACL policy for your tailnet), cleanly separating it from the write/validate/preview siblings (update_acl, validate_acl, preview_acl). An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the returned ETag 'must' be passed to tailscale_update_acl to update safely, effectively explaining the read-before-write relationship. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over validate_acl/preview_acl/diff_acl_access, so it stops short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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