Get ACL

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return-content context (roles, condition, script) but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown sys_id, whether elevation changes the output, or the openWorldHint implication of remote instance calls.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is perhaps slightly under-specified rather than over-long, which is the opposite failure mode of verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, naming the returned components is exactly the right compensation, and the simple three-parameter read shape needs little more. Only the elevation/visibility caveat and failure modes are absent, which keeps it from a 5.

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% and all three parameters (sys_id, elevate, instance) are documented in-schema, including the escalating caveat "Ask the user first" and the env-var fallback. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read one access control with its roles, condition and script" states a specific verb plus resource and even previews the returned fields. The word "one" implicitly separates it from list_acls, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer that distinction from the plural tool name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: "read one" suggests fetching a single ACL when the sys_id is known, versus list_acls for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of prerequisites despite the elevate/security_admin aspect existing in the schema.

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