get_acl_rule_ordering

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful given that no annotations are present. However, the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, ordering semantics, or any site/host access implications; the output schema covers the return shape but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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 two tight sentences: one front-loaded statement of the operation and one compact parameter breakdown. Every element earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description provides the necessary operation and parameter semantics. It does not mention the relationship to set_acl_rule_ordering, but the core invocation details are sufficiently covered.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID with a concrete MAC:numericId format, and site accepts name or ID. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get the ordering of ACL rules for a site,' clearly identifying the operation and target. It is distinguishable from sibling mutators like set_acl_rule_ordering and from get_acl_rule, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_acl_rule, list_acl_rules, or set_acl_rule_ordering. The agent must infer the intended use solely from the name and the sibling list, with no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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