rbac__lookup_tool_requirements

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds important behavioral context by stating that this tool reports required roles without checking the authenticated caller's access. This clarifies a likely source of confusion with RBAC tools and augments what the annotations alone convey.

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 two crisp sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds the key behavioral distinction and the routing to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema available, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what it does not do, and how it relates to the relevant sibling tool, so an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a descriptive example ('inventory__find_host_by_name'). The description does not need to add parameter detail, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('console role names required for an MCP tool'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rbac__explain_access_denied by explicitly noting it does not check the caller's current 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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need required roles rather than current access evaluation. It explicitly names the alternative tool to use after a 403 response, leaving no ambiguity about the appropriate choice between these related RBAC tools.

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