whodb_platform_project_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the per-call targeting note ('without changing defaults'), which largely restates the workspace schema. It says nothing about what the 'access matrix' contains or how large a result to expect.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the targeting constraint. No filler, no redundancy in surface structure.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the matrix reports and how resource_id/resource_type/team_id filter it. It leaves those relationships unexplained, so an agent knows what the tool is called for but not what it will actually see back.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself — baseline 3. The description's workspace {host, org, project} sentence duplicates what the schema's workspace description already says ('Optional target for this call only. Omit to use the session default...'), adding no new semantics.

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 and resource: 'Read the selected project's resource access matrix.' The project-level scope distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like whodb_platform_resource_access and whodb_platform_user_resource_access, but the description never names or contrasts those alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The second sentence describes how to target a workspace per call, which is schema mechanics rather than selection criteria. With several near-identical siblings (resource_access, resource_permissions, resource_types_access, my_grants, user_resource_access), the absence of any routing rule is a real gap.

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