get_user_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing truncation behavior ('If `truncated` is true lists are partial'), which an agent otherwise wouldn't know from the schema alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the selection cue, then the truncation caveat. Nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the truncation note usefully covers partial results. The only missing piece is email semantics for the lone required parameter, a minor but real gap for a 1-param tool.

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% for the single required `email` parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'a user's groups' implies the email identifies the user, but it never states the format, case sensitivity, or whether it must be an exact registered address, leaving a real gap.

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') and resource ('a user's groups and the resources reachable through those groups'), making it distinguishable from siblings like get_user (profile) and get_resource_access (reverse direction). The phrase 'reachable through those groups' precisely bounds the scope.

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 frames the use case: 'Use to answer "what can this person reach?"', which gives a clear selection signal versus get_user or list_* tools. No explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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