check_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not query the knowledge base, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether it modifies anything, requires special permissions, or how policy decisions are derived. It only says 'Returns: Access decision with policy details,' which is minimal.

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 compact docstring with a purpose sentence, a usage note, and structured Args/Returns sections. Each part adds necessary information and nothing is redundant. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into details.

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 access check tool, the description covers what, when, parameters, and return value. It does not mention edge cases like unknown users, unconfigured policies, or differences between the check and actual query behavior. However, the output schema exists to formalize return structure, so the description is adequate.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter in plain language. It specifies that access_type accepts 'read' or 'write' and defaults to 'read', which is not discernible from the schema alone. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Check if a user has access to a specific knowledge base without querying it,' using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without querying it' clearly distinguishes it from sibling query_knowledge_base. This is a strong, specific purpose statement.

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?

It explicitly states 'Useful for pre-flight permission checks before attempting a query,' which provides clear usage context. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is clearly defined. Sibling tools are listed but not explicitly compared.

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