get_resource_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructiveness, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the truncation condition and that 'truncated' being true means the principal list is incomplete — a caveat an agent must act on. It stops short of noting permission requirements or that only groups/service accounts (not users) appear.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the truncation caveat appended where it belongs. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description still flags the truncated field's meaning. What remains unsaid is that principals here are limited to groups/service accounts and that get_user_access covers the user-centric view — minor, but useful routing context for an access-audit workflow.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it does: resource_id is identified as a resource identifier sourced from list_resources. That is the meaningful semantic detail the bare string schema lacks; only format/example syntax is absent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show'), resource ('which groups and service accounts have access'), and scope ('one resource'), which is distinct from the sibling get_user_access (which pivots on a user) and from list_resources. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required resource_id comes from ('by resource id from list_resources'), which is the key prerequisite. It does not explicitly name get_user_access as the alternative when starting from a principal rather than a resource, so the inverse-use case is left implicit.

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