security-test-item-acl-by-path

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 the tool 'Tests' access rights, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of the test result. For a security testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear terminology, making it easy to understand at a glance while being appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, security-related), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, result interpretation, or error handling. While it meets the minimum for a read-oriented tool, it does not fully address the contextual needs for secure operations.

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 all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Tests'), resource ('access rights to a Sitecore item'), and scope ('by its path'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security-test-item-acl-by-id' by specifying the path-based approach, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implies usage context by mentioning testing access rights for a user/role on a Sitecore item, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'security-test-item-acl-by-id' for ID-based testing) or any prerequisites. The guidance is functional but lacks explicit comparative or exclusionary advice.

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