get_acls_by_principal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the principal can be a user or group, what happens when no ACLs match, or how resourceType affects results; it mostly restates the tool's basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is so terse that it contributes little beyond the tool name; still, this is a conciseness strength rather than a defect.

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 tool with no output schema and multiple ACL-related siblings, the description is incomplete: it does not explain return shape, filtering semantics of resourceType, or when to use this tool instead of get_acls/get_topic_acls/get_group_acls. The read-only annotations reduce the burden, but the agent still lacks enough context for reliable selection.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description ('Cluster name', 'Principal name', 'Resource type filter'). The tool description adds nothing beyond identifying 'principal' as the focus, so the schema carries the semantic burden; 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 clearly states a read operation ('Get') against a specific resource ('ACLs') scoped by principal, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling ACL tools such as get_acls and get_topic_acls, but the 'specific principal' scope helps narrow the meaning.

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 choose this tool over sibling ACL-related tools such as get_acls, get_topic_acls, or get_group_acls. It also does not mention any required setup such as a bearer token or environment. The principal scoping implies a use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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