access_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool surfaces whether the server is read-only, which is modest extra context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, cost, or when the result could change.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded enough to be read at a glance, though the phrasing is slightly awkward as a fragment rather than a clear action statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and with no input parameters the surface area is small. The description covers the two things the tool reports, making it reasonably complete for a trivial diagnostic call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description makes no parameter claims that need reconciling.

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 names the information returned (per-login capabilities and server read-only status) but never states a verb or the resource being inspected, so it reads more like a return-value summary than a tool purpose. An agent can infer it reports access/permission state, but it is not crisply differentiated from find_tool or the invoke_* siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (find_tool, invoke_read_tool, invoke_tool), and no preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the description of what it returns.

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