check-authorization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait: the action is not executed, implying a read-only safety profile. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as return value format or potential side effects like logging, so it's not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and a critical caveat without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple nature and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and non-execution behavior. It lacks a statement about the return value (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or an authorization decision), which would be helpful since no output schema is present. Overall, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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%, with all 4 parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('whether an action would be authorized by Stage0') and explicitly states the tool does NOT execute the action. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish-content and deploy-changes that actually perform actions.

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 implies usage as a pre-flight authorization check and the 'does NOT execute' caveat contrasts with execution tools, giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the non-execution statement.

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