rbac__get_caller_access

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying the identity used is the MCP server's service account or Bearer token, not necessarily the human user. This is genuinely useful behavioral context for interpreting results.

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 short sentences carry the essential purpose and the critical identity caveat without any wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the caveat is placed immediately after.

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 read-only tool with a full parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral context: what it returns, for whom, and that it is scoped to one application. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the application parameter is in scope, which is sufficient given the complete schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('RBAC access'), a specific subject ('authenticated caller'), and a scope ('one application'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rbac__get_caller_access_all by explicitly limiting to a single application.

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 clearly states the tool is for retrieving access for one application, which implies use cases where a single application scope is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one application' scoping provides clear contextual guidance against the 'all' sibling.

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