get_acls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cluster-level 'all ACLs' scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors like whether results include only direct ACLs, whether search filters client-side, or what happens for an unknown cluster. The bar is lower due to strong annotations, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, active-voice sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 read-only list tool with well-covered parameters and strong annotations, this is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify return shape, filtering semantics, or behavior in edge cases such as missing clusters or empty ACL sets. It is complete enough for tool selection but not fully complete for sophisticated invocation.

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 both required cluster and optional search are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the tool lists ACLs for a cluster, but it does not add meaning to the search parameter beyond what the schema states. 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 and resource: 'List all ACLs for a cluster.' The word 'all' and the cluster scope help distinguish it from sibling tools like get_acls_by_principal, get_topic_acls, and get_group_acls, but it does not explicitly name or contrast these alternatives.

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 phrase 'for a cluster' implies when to use this tool, and the presence of sibling tools implies filtered alternatives exist. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus get_acls_by_principal, get_topic_acls, or get_group_acls, so usage context is only implied.

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