collaboration_repo_access_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool summarizes access but does not state whether it is read-only, required permissions, or side effects. The only behavioral detail is defaulting to the plugin default repo, which is insufficient.

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 sentences pack essential information without fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then details on what it summarizes, and a note on default behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at return structure. It says 'summarizes' but does not describe the format or key fields. Also missing edge cases (e.g., user not found). However, for a diagnostic tool with clear purpose and simple parameters, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value for the repo parameter by noting it defaults to the plugin default repo, but for username it merely restates the schema description. Overall minor addition over schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 tool diagnoses how a user is granted access to a repo, summarizing multiple access types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_collaborators and collaboration_repo_invitations by focusing on the overall access picture.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention situations where other tools (e.g., collaboration_repo_collaborators) would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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