listOsgAcls

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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already supplied, the description still adds real value by enumerating the shape of the result: rule name, action (allow/deny), source/destination, protocol, and enabled state. That tells the agent the call is safe and what content it will get back without an output schema. It stops short of noting ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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, and the core action is front-loaded before the explanatory gloss. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers purpose, domain meaning, and returned fields, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor omissions are result ordering and how a missing/invalid site resolves, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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% and the single siteId parameter already documents its pattern, the OMADA_SITE_ID fallback, and the pointer to listSites. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List gateway (OSG) ACL rules for a site') and then defines what those rules are ('firewall rules controlling traffic between WAN, LAN, and guest networks'). The '(OSG)' qualifier implicitly separates it from switch/EAP ACL siblings, but it never names or contrasts with getOsgCustomAclList, getOswAclList, or listEapAcls, which is the most likely source of a mis-selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives, despite three close siblings (getOsgCustomAclList, getOswAclList, listEapAcls) plus getAclConfigTypeSetting. The only usage signal is implicit: the definition of ACLs implies you call this to inspect firewall rules, which the agent must infer.

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