winops_acl_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value beyond annotations by documenting the return format {success, path, raw_acl}, revealing that output is a raw ACL string with a success flag. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations; they align consistently.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a compact return format code block, and a single illustrative example. Every line earns its place with zero filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary verb for quick scanning.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It documents the return contract and example usage. The only minor gap is lack of error-handling context (e.g., behavior when the path doesn't exist or access is denied), but this doesn't detract significantly given the annotations and output schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'path' parameter documented as 'File or directory path to inspect.' The description's example `get(path="C:\\Users\\Public")` adds a small amount of value by demonstrating Windows path escaping and format, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning. With high schema coverage, 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 uses a specific verb+resource construct ('View the ACL (Access Control List) for a file or directory') that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like winops_acl_grant, winops_acl_revoke, and winops_acl_inheritance, positioning itself as the read/view operation within the ACL family.

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 verb 'View' and the code example get(path="C:\\Users\\Public") clearly imply this is the read-only ACL inspection tool versus the modification siblings (grant/revoke). The example provides concrete invocation guidance. However, the description doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria ('use this instead of X'), relying on sibling names for that context.

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