rbac__get_caller_access_all

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the paginated nature of the fetch and the crucial identity-scoping caveat about MCP's service account versus the console user. This adds real context that annotations do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. The core function—'List all RBAC permissions for the authenticated MCP caller'—is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious identity nuance that could otherwise cause misuse.

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 read-only, single optional-parameter tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers all the essential context an agent needs: what is listed, pagination, and the identity boundary. Nothing critical is missing for a successful 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'username parameter is already fully described in the input schema, including its default value and admin requirement. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('all RBAC permissions'), and a clear scope ('for the authenticated MCP caller'). The parenthetical '(paginated fetch)' further distinguishes it from any simple or non-paginated listing variant, and the wording makes it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like rbac__get_caller_access.

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 important context about which identity permissions apply to, clarifying that results apply to the MCP service account or Bearer identity, not the console user. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the similar sibling rbac__get_caller_access or mention any alternative alternatives, leaving the tool-selection decision mostly implicit.

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