get_acl_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Get' signals a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no configuration changes are made or explain not-found/error behavior, leaving some behavioral details to inference.

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?

Three short lines with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter notes are directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter getter, the description covers what the tool does, how to identify the host/site/rule, and where to get the rule ID. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, and no critical calling information is missing.

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?

The schema only shows three string fields with no descriptions, but the description explains exact accepted formats for host (console name, ID, or MAC:numericId), site (name or ID), and rule_id (required, sourced from list_acl_rules). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds actionable guidance.

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 states a specific operation ('Get a single ACL rule by ID') on a distinct resource ('ACL rule'), which separates it from sibling getters like get_firewall_rule and list_acl_rules. The 'single ... by ID' phrasing explicitly contrasts with list_acl_rules, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for use: retrieve one ACL rule by rule_id, and instructs the agent to obtain rule_id from list_acl_rules. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative retrieval/ordering tools, but the single-vs-list distinction is strongly implied.

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