get_field_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. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format is provided. The description doesn't mention that this tool requires an app_id parameter or that preview mode is optional.

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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, it could be more front-loaded with key distinguishing information (e.g., 'field-level' permissions specifically).

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the ACL information is returned in, what permissions are included, or how to interpret the results. The description doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation (though implied) or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of ACL systems and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters (app_id and preview). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples. Since schema coverage is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and target resource ('kintoneアプリのフィールドのアクセス権限' - Kintone app field access permissions). It specifies what is being retrieved (field ACLs) rather than just restating the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_acl' or 'get_record_acl' which retrieve different types of permissions.

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. There are multiple ACL-related tools in the sibling list (get_app_acl, get_record_acl, evaluate_records_acl), but the description doesn't explain that this tool specifically retrieves field-level permissions rather than app-level or record-level permissions. No context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use is provided.

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