list_acl_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that host accepts name/ID/composite ID formats and that site accepts name or ID, which is useful. It does not state read-only behavior, pagination, or side effects, though 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words; the operation is front-loaded and parameter guidance follows immediately.

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 list operation with only two required parameters, the description covers the essential identification semantics and an output schema exists to define the return shape. It could add an explicit note on alternatives or any pagination, but nothing essential 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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by defining both parameters: host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId), and site can be a name or ID. This gives an agent enough to fill the required fields correctly.

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 verb (List), a concrete resource (ACL rules), and the scope (for a site), clearly distinguishing this list operation from sibling get_acl_rule (which fetches one rule) and the mutating ACL tools.

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?

It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it; instead, 'all' implies listing the collection while siblings like get_acl_rule cover single-rule retrieval. The required host/site context is given, but no direct routing guidance.

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