Get ACL rule ordering

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, non-openWorld). The description adds useful domain semantics — that rules are evaluated in list order — but says nothing about permissions, aliasing with unifi_get_firewall_policy_ordering, or any other behavioral trait.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return semantics. Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Restating the return field borders on redundant given the output schema, but the ordering semantics are a genuine addition.

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?

There is a single parameter (siteId) whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the evaluation order of user-defined ACL rules'), which is clearly distinct from unifi_list_acl_rules and unifi_get_acl_rule. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives such as unifi_list_acl_rules or unifi_get_acl_rule. The intended use (determining rule precedence) is only implied by the description.

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