gateway_admin_explain_access

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Explain' rather than mutate. It adds a useful behavioral clue beyond annotations by specifying the required permission, 'Requires access:read,' which helps the agent predict authorization failures.

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?

Both sentences earn their place: the first states the core function, the second states the required permission. It is short, front-loaded, and free of repetitive filler.

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 six parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema text beyond the schema itself, the description is too thin to ensure correct invocation. It doesn't explain how a subject is identified, how groups_json relates to subject_key, or what action/resource_type mean; the output schema exists, but input-side guidance is incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not compensate: none of the six parameters (system, action, resource, groups_json, subject_key, resource_type) are explained. The phrase 'user/group subject' hints at subject semantics, but no parameter mapping or format guidance is given.

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 a specific verb ('Explain') and target ('whether a user/group subject can access one MCP resource'), making the tool's core purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from the many admin/access siblings only by mentioning 'one MCP resource, but it never explicitly names an alternative, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: it doesn't say when to prefer this over gateway_admin_list_access, gateway_admin_grant_resource, or gateway_access_profile. The only extra info, 'Requires access:read,' is a prerequisite, not a usage decision.

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