Check IT Glue Password Access

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

The description adds valuable context beyond what annotations provide: it explains the purpose of checking API key permissions and the specific access level being verified. While annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, the description provides the 'why' behind the tool's existence and clarifies what 'password access' means in this 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?

Perfectly structured with three concise sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage context, third specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 simple permission-checking tool with no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed: clear purpose, usage guidance, and return value specification. It doesn't need to explain parameters or complex behaviors since the tool is straightforward and well-supported by annotations.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on explaining the tool's purpose and return value, which adds meaningful context for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('check if the configured API key has password access permission'), identifies the resource (IT Glue API key configuration), and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools which perform CRUD operations on various IT Glue entities rather than checking API permissions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('before attempting password operations') and provides clear context about why it's needed (API keys can be configured with or without password access). This gives the agent specific guidance on when this verification step should be performed.

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