check_access

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

The description discloses the return value ('Whether access is allowed and via which relationship'), providing behavioral insight. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions required, or idempotency. Given no annotations, it offers minimal but adequate transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes docstring-style Args/Returns that could be more concise. It earns its place but could drop the structural extras without loss.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and return value. However, it misses the third parameter (snapshot_id) and does not address safety or usage constraints, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, requiring the description to add meaning. It explains 'principal' and 'resource' with examples but omits the 'snapshot_id' parameter entirely. This incomplete coverage fails to fully 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: testing if a principal can access a resource. It uses a specific verb ('Test') and identifies the key resources ('principal', 'resource'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_compliance or explain_finding.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does without context.

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