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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Admin only' indicates an authorization requirement. It also describes the data scope (roles, effective capabilities, delegated grants). However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what errors might occur, or what happens with invalid inputs. This adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds practical use context. There is no redundant or filler content, making it an efficiently structured description.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers purpose, a usage scenario, admin restriction, and the content of the result (roles, capabilities, grants). While it doesn't describe the exact return format, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's scope, with only minor gaps around edge-case behavior.

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 one required parameter 'member' with no description (coverage 0%). The description implies that 'member' refers to the user whose capabilities are being shown, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., username, email, or ID). The description partially compensates for the missing schema documentation but not fully.

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 the tool's function: 'Show a user's roles, effective capabilities, and delegated grants.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like brainkb_list_capabilities and brainkb_role_capabilities by focusing on a user's effective permissions. The additional context about checking permissions for actions adds purpose clarity.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful to check why someone can/can't create team spaces, ingest, etc.' It explicitly indicates this tool is for troubleshooting permission issues, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance but still has clear context.

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