sf_get_user_record_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope (single user, up to 200 records) but does not describe return format, side effects, error handling, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. The word 'Check' implies safety but does not confirm it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Check', and contains no filler or redundant information. It earns its place with the specific access types and the record limit.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns or the roles of directory and targetOrg. This leaves an agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly, especially in multi-org scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter details. It only hints at 'single user' (userId) and '200 records' (recordIds), leaving directory and targetOrg unexplained. Agents may not know how to populate these optional parameters.

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 it 'Check read/edit/delete/transfer access for a single user across up to 200 records.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool sf_get_user_object_create_access, which is about object-level access rather than record-level.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as sf_get_user_object_create_access. The description implies record-level access but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool selection criteria.

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