gateway_access_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds the specific data returned (identity, scopes, access packages, recent requests), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like whether 'recent access requests' includes pending/approved/denied, or whether the output is paginated. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists the key output categories. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what data it will get. It could mention that this is the caller's own profile (vs. admin views), but the phrase 'current authenticated identity' already implies that. The output schema likely covers return details, so nothing critical 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only semantic content needed. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing the current authenticated identity, effective scopes, access packages, and recent access requests. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current authenticated identity...'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gateway_access_request_list or gateway_admin_list_access. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it's clear but not maximally distinct.

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: call this to see your own access profile. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like gateway_access_request_list or gateway_admin_explain_access. The context is clear enough for a self-profile tool, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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