Get ACL rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description adds only the site-scoping detail. Nothing is said about behavior on a missing/unknown id, permission requirements, or whether a 404 is returned rather than an empty object.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as discipline.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what a returned ACL rule looks like (fields, ordering position) or that it fails for unknown ids. It provides none of that, leaving an agent to call it blind after the trivial schema and annotations.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'id', and the description does not compensate: it does not state the id format (UUID vs. numeric), where to obtain it (list_acl_rules), or whether it must belong to the current site.

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?

"Detail for one ACL rule on the current site" names the resource and implies a single-record read, so the verb+resource is inferable. However it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling reads in the list (unifi_net_list_acl_rules, unifi_net_get_acl_rule_ordering, and the near-duplicate unifi_gen_getaclrule), leaving an agent to guess which one fetches a single rule.

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 when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list_acl_rules call as the way to obtain an id. The only context is the implicit 'current site' scoping, which is a constraint rather than a routing hint.

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