check_privileges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, that it reports GRANTED/DENIED per privilege, and discloses an important limitation: mutating export/import/download privileges cannot be safely probed and are noted in the result. This gives the agent a clear understanding of safety and expected behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature. Every clause adds information: scope, conditional behavior, output format, and a limitation. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is checked, the condition for folder_id, and the output style (GRANTED/DENIED). A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the response shape for the base case, but the stated 'reports GRANTED/DENIED per privilege' suffices given the simplicity.

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 only parameter, folder_id, is optional and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that when folder_id is provided, the tool also probes RLCM folder-assets. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't describe the parameter format or type 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 clearly states the tool's function: probing API-client privileges for the current token. It specifies the resource (API-client privileges) and the action (probe, read-only), and lists the scope (workspace, folders, recipes, connections, and optionally RLCM folder-assets). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_mcp_privileges' by explicitly referencing API-client privileges.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to check what privileges the current token has. The 'if folder_id is given' condition provides some guidance, but there are no explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use instructions. It doesn't mention that for viewing actual folders/recipes one would use the list_* tools, or that 'check_mcp_privileges' is for MCP contexts.

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