get_record_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('取得します'), but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with no annotations, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. There is no wasted language or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves access control information. It does not explain what the output includes (e.g., permissions list, user/group details) or behavioral context like error cases (e.g., invalid IDs). For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (app_id and record_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: '指定したレコードのアクセス権限を取得します' (Get the access permissions for a specified record). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and the resource 'アクセス権限' (access permissions) with the scope '指定したレコード' (specified record). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_acl' or 'get_field_acl', which handle permissions for different resources.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_app_acl' (for app-level permissions) or 'get_field_acl' (for field-level permissions), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as requiring a valid app_id and record_id. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly defined.

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