getOsgCustomAclList

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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the domain context that custom ACLs layer user-defined policies on top of standard gateway ACLs, but says nothing about result ordering, total counts, or behavior when no custom ACLs 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource; the second sentence earns its place by defining what a custom ACL is. The '(paginated)' parenthetical is only marginally useful given the schema already exposes paging params.

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?

A read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations needs little more than this. The definition covers purpose and domain context adequately; only return-shape expectations are unaddressed, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 page, pageSize, and siteId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes 'paginated' and adds no syntax, default, or site-targeting detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the custom gateway ACL rules list') and adds a scope qualifier (paginated, custom vs. standard). An agent can tell it apart conceptually from listOsgAcls/getOswAclList, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'Custom ACLs extend the standard gateway ACL rules' implies that standard ACL retrieval lives elsewhere, giving implicit routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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