access_control_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies read-only, but the description does not explain return format, pagination, permissions, or other side effects. This is inadequate for a safe tool invocation.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context. It is concise but not overly so for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Despite a simple 1-parameter schema, the tool belongs to a large family of access control tools. The description does not clarify what 'accessControlResources' refers to or what the output looks like, leaving a significant gap for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema already documents the single `customer_slug` parameter with a clear description. The tool description's example variables '{}' reinforces optionality but adds no further semantic value, so baseline 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 clear verb ('query') and resource ('accessControlResources'), which identifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling access control tools (e.g., access_control_policies, access_group), and what constitutes 'resources' remains vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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