Request Access

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral fact beyond them: the tool will not prompt the user. It also clarifies that the operation is a read, not an actual access request, which is useful given the tool name.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and zero filler. Every word 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 tool that primarily reports permission/runtime status, neither the return shape nor the meaning of 'runtime readiness' is described, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. The annotations cover safety, but selection and invocation still require more context.

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 single optional parameter `capabilities` has essentially no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it or explains how it interacts with the permission/runtime-readiness read. The agent is left to guess whether to pass capabilities and what values are valid.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') plus a resource ('permission and runtime readiness'), and the qualifier 'without prompting' distinguishes it from the action implied by the name. It is not quite a 5 because 'permission' remains underspecified and no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings like get_app_state or open_application. The phrase 'without prompting' tells the agent what the tool will not do, but not when it should be selected or what conditions make it necessary.

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