rlm_request_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool creates an access request that admins approve/deny. It does not mention side effects, immediate access change (there is none), or authorization requirements beyond the user's current level. Adequate but not rich; could mention that the request is pending.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a request object or success message). However, given the tool's simplicity and the clear explanation of the outcome (an access request is created), it is fairly complete. Could be improved by noting the return type.

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% for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining that `requested_level` enum values (VIEWER, EDITOR, ADMIN) are higher levels that can be requested from NONE, and `reason` is optional. This ties the parameters to the workflow. However, it does not detail the format or limitations of the reason.

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 clearly states the verb 'request' and the resource 'access to a project'. It specifies the action: team members with NONE access level can request higher levels (VIEWER, EDITOR, ADMIN), and the result is an access request for admins to approve/deny. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are access request tools.

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 implicitly says when to use: when a team member has NONE access level and wants higher access. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but given there are no other request tools among siblings, the guidance is clear enough. A more explicit 'use this to...' would be ideal.

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