List Acl Rules

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination, ordering, or whether rules are returned in evaluation order. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this description contributes zero extra behavioral context.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but as sheer conciseness it is fine.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no input parameters the description's burden is low. Still, it is the bare minimum for a listing tool and says nothing about scope or result shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax that the description could add.

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 clear verb+resource ('列出 ACL 访问控制规则'), so an agent knows this retrieves ACL rules. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling write operations (add_acl_rule, delete_acl_rule, toggle_acl_rule), which the name already implies but the description never confirms.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or of alternatives such as list_acl_rules vs. the add/delete/toggle siblings. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'list'.

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