get_user_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the command used but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any prerequisites, permission requirements, or failure modes. The 'list' wording implies non-mutation, but the description lacks a clear statement of side effects or limitations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and command are front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately gives actionable parameter guidance. It is both 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?

The tool has three parameters and no annotations, but an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description handles username and namespace but leaves cluster's role ambiguous. An agent could still call the tool correctly with default cluster, but the missing semantic context makes the description only partially complete.

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. It explains the namespace parameter's meaning and effects, and it implies the username parameter via the --as=<username> command. However, the cluster parameter is left completely unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 action ('List all actions a user can perform') and the resource (the user's permissions), and it references the exact underlying command ('oc auth can-i --list --as=<username>'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user or list_users, which focus on user information rather than access rights.

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 provides parameter-level guidance ('Specify namespace to scope the check; omit for cluster-wide actions') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cluster_roles or list_role_bindings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving an agent to infer the tool's niche from its name and purpose.

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