whodb_platform_user_resource_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 does add a genuinely useful behavioral note — that workspace targeting applies "for per-call targeting without changing defaults" — but says nothing about permission requirements, result shape, or scope limits.

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, both front-loaded: the purpose first, then the one non-obvious calling convention. No filler and 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?

For a read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly and states what is returned conceptually (resources plus grant provenance). It could be slightly more complete on scoping relative to siblings, but nothing essential is missing.

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 nested object is already thoroughly documented in the schema (including "Does not change the default host" and the session-default fallback chain). The description's restatement of {host, org, project} adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ("List") and resource ("resources one organization member can access and how that access was granted"), which is more precise than a generic access-listing tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as whodb_platform_resource_access, whodb_platform_project_access, whodb_platform_user_owned_resources, or whodb_platform_my_grants, so the agent must infer which scope applies.

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 description implies usage (per-member access auditing) and notes the workspace override is per-call, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this over resource_access or my_grants.

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