evaluate_records_acl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'evaluates' access permissions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format might be, if it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's output or context, but it's appropriately concise for its content.

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 complexity (evaluating permissions with conditions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'evaluate' entails, what results to expect, or how conditions are applied. For a tool that likely returns detailed access control information, this leaves too much unspecified for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (app_id and record_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the 'specified conditions' mentioned. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool evaluates access permissions for records based on specified conditions, which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'evaluate' means operationally (e.g., returns permission levels, checks access) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_record_acl' or 'get_app_acl'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'specified conditions' but doesn't explain what those are or how they relate to parameters. With sibling tools like 'get_record_acl' and 'get_app_acl' available, there's no indication of when this evaluation tool is preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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