access_requests

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-like behavior (listing), default status, pagination mechanics, and owner tier. Doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only), but implies it. Good detail for a list endpoint.

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?

Three paragraphs, appropriately front-loaded with core purpose. Some repetition (e.g., 'the ones still waiting on you'), but overall efficient. Could be slightly more compact, but not overly verbose.

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 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, pagination, and tier. Lacks explicit return value description, but for a list tool it's reasonably complete. Validates well against complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, making description essential. It explains status default and filtering, since cursor semantics (referencing whats_new), and hints at limit via 'count == limit' pagination. Adds significant value beyond bare schema.

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 lists access requests and their status ('Who has asked for access and what happened to them'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like grant/revoke by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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?

Provides specific guidance: every new subject gets a line, status defaults to 'pending', use status='' for full history, and cursor-based pagination with since. Lacks explicit mention of when to use alternatives like grant/revoke, but context is clear.

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