security-test-item-acl-by-id

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 'Tests' access rights, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe other behaviors like error handling, performance, or authentication needs. For a security testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to understand at a glance without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format. With schema coverage at 100%, the description meets a basic threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for parameter values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 tool's purpose: 'Tests whether a user or role has specific access rights to a Sitecore item by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Tests'), resource ('access rights to a Sitecore item'), and method ('by its ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'security-test-item-acl-by-path', which tests by path instead of ID, though this is implied by the name.

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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'security-test-item-acl-by-path' for testing by path, nor does it explain prerequisites like required permissions or database context. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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