list_access_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes the tool as listing options, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. This is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it could explicitly state that no state changes occur.

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 short, direct sentences. No extraneous information. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and how to use it with related compute functions. However, it does not describe the output format or structure beyond listing 'options, constraint types, and input formats.' Given no output schema, slightly more detail on the return value would improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for a discovery tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists 'available access computation options, constraint types, and input formats.' The verb 'list' and specific resource categories make the purpose precise. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_access which perform computations.

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 says 'Use this to discover how to call compute_access() and compute_access_from_gp().' This provides direct guidance on when to use the tool. It does not list when not to use or alternatives, but the context of discovery is clear.

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