tailscale_acl_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool runs tests and returns results, but does not disclose whether it modifies the policy, requires authentication, or has side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentences with clear front-loading of the action. No redundant words or unnecessary information. Each sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the action and what the output contains (pass/fail results). It could mention that the tool is non-modifying, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 100% with a description for the 'policy' parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying that the tests are in the 'tests' field and that validation occurs, but it does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states that the tool runs ACL tests from the policy's 'tests' field and returns validation results including pass/fail outcomes. It specifies the action (run tests) and resource (policy tests), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like tailscale_acl_validate or tailscale_acl_preview.

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 the tool is for testing ACL policies, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., tailscale_acl_validate for validation without tests). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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