get_table_acls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool retrieves all ACL rules (including field-level), indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential permission requirements, or whether the result set could be large and require pagination.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (all ACL rules including field-level), which is sufficient for context. A minor improvement would be to mention that it returns a list of rules, but overall it's adequate.

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 sole parameter 'table' has a description in the schema ('Table name'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ACL rules for a ServiceNow table', including the scope 'including field-level ACLs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_target_acl' and 'explore_table', which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage context (retrieving ACL rules) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The mention of 'field-level ACLs' hints at granularity, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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