Show my access

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the 403 diagnostic semantics and what visibility information is included, though it does not elaborate further on response shape or edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core answer to 'what can I see' and follows with the operational 403 guidance. Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant restatement of annotations or schema details.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the missing context: what visibility data is returned and how to use it diagnostically before related queries. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space describing inputs, as there are none.

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?

It concretely states what the tool exposes: admin flag, group memberships, and every visible project with roles. It also distinguishes this visibility/access tool from querying issues or users outside the caller's projects, so an agent can tell why this tool exists.

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 gives explicit timing and diagnostic guidance: use it before querying issues or users outside your projects, and interpret a 403 as an object outside the visible scope rather than malformed input. This is actionable when-to-use guidance, not just a restatement of the tool name.

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