gateway_knowledge_access_audit

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Show' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation—it does not clarify whether the output includes inherited permissions, scope, or how permissions are presented. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds minimal context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable. No words are wasted, and the structure is clean.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the parameter's semantics, the scope of 'knowledge spaces' (all or specific), or what 'actor permissions' entails. While the output schema may cover return structure, the description leaves key usage details unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional investigation.

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 schema has 1 parameter ('space') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning, format, or behavior. The phrase 'for knowledge spaces' implies the parameter might be a space identifier, but it is ambiguous whether it is optional, how to specify it, or what happens when omitted. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('current actor permissions for knowledge spaces'), which is specific enough to distinguish from generic listing tools like gateway_knowledge_spaces or gateway_knowledge_space_list. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling gateway_knowledge_audit_access, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses an opportunity to disambiguate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many knowledge and admin permission-related siblings (e.g., gateway_knowledge_audit_access, gateway_admin_explain_access) but the description offers no conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name and context.

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