infomaniak_get_user_app_accesses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the 'admin inventory' and 'access audit/offboarding' context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It is consistent and non-contradictory, but adds limited extra behavioral detail.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes meaning. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with complete schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. It covers the core need (identifying what and when) without exceeding scope.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters (user_id and account_id). The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('app accesses'), and the scope ('for one account user'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like infomaniak_list_account_users or infomaniak_audit_account_access by framing it as an admin inventory for access audit and offboarding.

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 usage context: 'Read-only admin inventory for access audit and offboarding planning.' It implies when to use it (audit, offboarding) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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