akb_explain_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conceptual output (independent bases and derived effective role) and implies a read-only analysis behavior. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it discuss permissions or edge cases, so it adds moderate but not complete behavioral 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, output contents, and a key differentiator with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the contrast with member lists earns its place.

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 two-parameter read/explain tool, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns (basis and effective role). It lacks explicit notes on errors, permissions, or output formatting, but these are not critical given the simple schema and clear purpose.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters adequately. The description adds contextual meaning around 'vault' and 'user' (role relationship) but does not supply additional format or semantics beyond the 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 names a specific action ('Explain why'), a specific resource (a user's role on a vault), and a concrete deliverable ('every independent basis, and the effective role derived from them'). It also differentiates itself from member-list tools by stating that a member list shows results, not reasons.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is the right choice: whenever the reasoning behind a role, rather than the resulting membership, is needed. It contrasts with member lists but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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