get_acls

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

The description supplements the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) by noting that script conditions are redacted for credentials and that include_scripts controls whether redacted bodies are returned. It also describes the return structure, adding transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-organized with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value—explaining redaction, defaults, and return fields. It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient for the complexity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description's detailed return description is complementary. It covers all parameters, behavioral nuances (redaction, defaults), and pagination. No gaps are apparent for a tool of this moderate complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all five parameters: table (CMDB table example), active_only (default True), include_scripts (default False with token efficiency hint), limit (range 1-1000, default 25), offset (pagination). This provides essential meaning missing from the schema.

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 the tool retrieves ACL rules for a CMDB table, specifies the underlying table (sys_security_acl), and lists what operations are covered. While it's unambiguous and uses a specific verb-resource combination, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; however, no sibling appears to share this focus, so it's clear enough.

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 explains what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context suggests this is the only tool for ACL inspection among siblings, so reliance on implicit understanding is acceptable, but direct usage guidance is absent.

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