get_app_acl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (get/retrieve) implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the access permissions are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, or authentication requirements that would be helpful given the absence of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (app_id and preview) completely. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('kintoneアプリのアクセス権限' - kintone app access permissions), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_field_acl' or 'get_record_acl', but the resource specificity (app vs field vs record) provides implicit distinction.

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 like 'get_field_acl' or 'get_record_acl', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It's a standalone statement without comparative or contextual information.

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