Get Access List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds a key behavioral constraint: 'NPM does not return stored item passwords, so password values cannot be read back.' It also implies a read-only fetch and describes the return structure. It does not cover authentication or error behavior, but for a read-only getter this is a strong disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently packs purpose, usage guidance, a limitation, and return details into four sentences. The final sentence listing return fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but otherwise every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, a runtime limitation, and expected content. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the sole 'id' parameter. The description reinforces that an ID is required but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('access list'), and scope ('by ID'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_access_lists by directing discovery use there. It also specifies the contents returned (client rules, basic-auth user metadata), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('for detailed rules') and names the alternative ('use list_access_lists to discover IDs'), providing the condition that selects between them. No inference is required to choose the right tool.

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