project_access_list_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Get' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles errors (e.g., entry not found). This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and constraints.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information. This is appropriately brief for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (get a single entry) and complete parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return format, error scenarios (e.g., missing entry), and does not hint at the output despite the lack of an output schema. Compared to sibling tools with richer descriptions, this one is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described adequately (e.g., accesslistentry is 'IP address or CIDR block entry'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra value is provided for the optional 'options' parameter.

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 'Get a specific access list entry for the project' clearly states the action (get), the resource (specific access list entry), and scope (project). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like project_access_list_get_all (list all) and project_access_list_create/update/delete (mutations), making it easy to select the correct tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or contrast it with siblings like project_access_list_get_all for retrieving multiple entries. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and brief description.

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