sentinel_check_agent_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether this is read-only, whether it makes external side effects, whether it requires prior registration of the agent/server, or what the 'policy decision' response shape looks like. For a tool that evaluates policy, it doesn't clarify how the policy is sourced or whether the test triggers rule evaluation or just looks up precomputed state.

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 sentence with zero waste: states what it does, what it takes, and what it returns. Front-loaded and to the point.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a tool that returns a policy decision and reason, the description should explain more about the return shape, whether the check is against live or cached policy, error behavior if the agent/server doesn't exist, and side effects. The tool is relatively simple (3 params, all strings), but the absence of any behavioral or output detail makes it incomplete for pre-flight decision-making.

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 100%, so each parameter (agentId, serverName, toolName) already has a clear description. The tool description adds the conceptual context that these three parameters together represent a test request. Given full schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description slightly elevates by framing what the parameters accomplish together.

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 tests whether a specific agent can call a specific tool, and returns a policy decision and reason. It uses a specific verb ('Test') with a clear resource (agent access to a tool). Among siblings like sentinel_add_policy_rule or sentinel_call_tool, this is well differentiated as a policy-checking operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify how this check differs from making an actual call (sentinel_call_tool), whether it should be used to pre-validate before calling, or when policy review vs. direct testing is appropriate.

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