rbac__get_all_access

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions gzipped responses handled by the client, which is a useful detail. However, it does not cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the 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?

Three sentences front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words. The structure guides the agent from general purpose to specific details and usage recommendation.

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 tool's simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral note. It could mention that it returns access for all users or across all applications, but the usage guidance suffices.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on how the parameters (username, limit, offset) affect the result or provide examples.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'access information for all Red Hat insights applications' clearly. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scope 'across all applications', which is unique among the listed 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?

The description explicitly advises 'Use this when you need to see access permissions across all applications.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for more specific queries.

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