check_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it needs no credential, makes no Skilljar call when nothing is configured, works even when everything else fails, and returns no secret material—only credential status and granted scopes. This fully discloses behavior in way annotations cannot.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes to operational understanding. It opens with the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and edge-case behavior. While it could be tightened slightly, the structure is logical and information-dense without redundancy.

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?

Given the zero-parameter signature, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how to act on results, its independence from credentials, and its reliability even when other tools fail. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none. It correctly notes that it requires no credential itself, which is about invocation context rather than parameters. Baseline applies.

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 purpose: it reports which Skilljar credential is configured and working and what each unlocks. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_capabilities and list_courses, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The 'call this first' instruction further clarifies its diagnostic role.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first whenever a tool reports a credential problem' and instructs the agent to relay the result rather than retry, since retries fail identically. It also explains the two-independent-credentials scenario, which helps decide when to act. This is strong usage direction.

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