unifi_get_acl_rule_ordering

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that 'Rules higher in the list win', which explains evaluation order. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with action, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: verb, resource, return format, and ordering semantics.

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 presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description sufficiently covers the operation. It mentions the return format and ordering rule. Could be more complete by noting that the site must have ACL rules, but overall adequate for a read-only tool with one parameter.

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% with the parameter 'siteId' described as 'Site ID'. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the evaluation order of user-defined ACL rules' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like unifi_get_acl_rule or unifi_list_acl_rules, though context implies differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unifi_list_acl_rules or unifi_get_firewall_policy_ordering. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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