getOswAclList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is paginated and describes the nature of the returned rules, which is useful, but it does not cover ordering, total counts, or what an empty result means for a switch with no ACLs.

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, zero filler, with the resource and pagination stated up front and the returned content clarified immediately after. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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, fully optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives just enough to know what is returned at a high level, but it omits the shape of the returned rule objects (fields, whether ports/VLAN IDs appear) that an agent would need since no output schema exists.

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%: page, pageSize (with range and default), and siteId (with pattern and a pointer to listSites) are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the switch ACL list") and scopes the content as "per-port or VLAN-based access control rules applied to managed switches," which distinguishes it from the sibling ACL tools for gateways and EAPs (getOsgCustomAclList, listOsgAcls, listEapAcls) without naming them 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 word "switch" implies this is the tool for switch-side ACLs rather than gateway/EAP ACLs, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition or prerequisite is stated. Usage is inferable from the scope rather than explained.

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