request_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it requests permissions, but omits that this typically triggers a system prompt requiring user interaction, that it can fail if the user denies, and whether it is a blocking call. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding when to proceed with acting.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 description is sparse for a permission tool with no annotations or output schema. It doesn't explain that user approval may be required, that the call could return without granting permissions, or what happens if the user denies. An agent may incorrectly assume the call guarantees permission.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent 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 clearly states a specific verb ('request') and resource ('OS-level accessibility and screen recording permissions'). It distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which are action-oriented (click, type, list), by identifying it as the permission-granting prerequisite.

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 instruction 'Call once before acting' provides a clear temporal placement and frequency constraint, implying it should be used before any other tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions for skipping, but the 'before acting' context is sufficient for a permission request tool that is a prerequisite to the sibling actions.

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