get_acl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context about a required setting (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) and specifies what information will be returned, which goes beyond the structured data. No contradictions exist.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and specific details, with the prerequisite in parentheses. No redundant or unnecessary words are used.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, the specific details returned, and an operational requirement. Without an output schema, it still gives the agent enough context about what to expect. The openWorldHint annotation is not contradicted and the description is appropriately complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single 'sys_id' parameter, describing it as 'ACL sys_id.' The description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an ACL rule,' with the scope 'full details including its script and role requirements.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_acls, create_acl, and update_acl.

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 implies usage when needing detailed information about a specific ACL, especially the script and role requirements, and notes a key prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full guidance.

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