whodb_platform_resource_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the workspace argument is scoped "for per-call targeting without changing defaults," telling the agent this call cannot mutate session state. It still says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the targeting caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what the call returns, yet "subjects" is left undefined (users, teams, service accounts?) and no result shape or pagination is described. The targeting behavior is well covered, but the return side of a 5-parameter, nested-object tool is thin.

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% and the workspace object already documents each sub-field, including that host "Does not change the default host." The description's targeting note largely restates that, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a precise resource ("subjects with access to a hosted resource"), so an agent knows this is an access-enumeration read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as whodb_platform_user_resource_access, whodb_platform_resource_permissions, or whodb_platform_project_access, which cover closely related directions of the same access data.

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 second sentence clarifies per-call targeting behavior but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling to prefer for the reverse query (which resources a subject can reach). Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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