noetic.check_rights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by explicitly stating the call is a dry-run and 'not metered', signaling no side effects and no charge. It does not describe error behavior or permission-denial responses, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be improved by starting with a verb, but every element 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?

With six schema-undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: required inputs, response format, and when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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 0%, and the description never mentions any of the six parameters. The agent must guess the roles of resource, estTokens, operation, sessionId, requestedRights, and subjectPrincipal from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific purpose: preflight-checking whether an operation would be allowed and at what price. The 'dry-run' framing distinguishes it from mutation tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings like noetic.authority or noetic.simulate.

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?

'Preflight dry-run' implies the tool should be used before a real operation, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be alternatives.

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