listEapAcls

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the returned fields: rule name, action, SSID scope, source/destination, protocol, and enabled state. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but it substantially improves visibility into the result beyond what the 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 front-loaded and compact: it states the resource scope first, then lists the returned fields in one concise clause. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it explains the resource and enumerates returned fields. It could mention whether results are paginated or unfiltered, but the core context is present.

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%, and the single siteId parameter is fully documented there, including its pattern, default-site behavior, and discovery via listSites. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the schema baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: list EAP ACL rules for a site, and clarifies that these are wireless client access control rules. This distinguishes it from generic ACL and firewall siblings by naming the EAP/wireless ACL scope.

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 site scope implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit guidance on choosing between this and ACL-related siblings such as getGridEapRule, getOswAclList, or listOsgAcls. Usage is inferable from the name and purpose but not routed against alternatives.

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