user_privileges

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' line is partly redundant. The description does add one behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the password hash from SHOW GRANTS is hidden. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions required, limits, or error behavior, so it adds only modest value over the annotation.

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 main clause is front-loaded and dense with return content, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and the Args formatting is slightly verbose for two parameters.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return, and it does: effective privileges with per-privilege reasons, groups and roles, resource pool grants, and SHOW GRANTS with the hash redacted. It is adequate for a read tool, with only the absence of sibling routing and permission prerequisites as gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does both: user ('User name.') and host ('Host part (\'%\' etc.). Needed only when the name exists for several hosts.'). The host explanation adds real semantic meaning (example value and conditional requirement) that the schema does not.

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 resource (effective privileges of one SingleStore user) and enumerates what is returned: reasons per privilege, groups/roles, resource pool grants, and SHOW GRANTS. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternatives (security_user_detail, who_can_access).

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads one user's privilege picture, and the host arg notes when it is required ('name exists for several hosts'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against the sibling security_* tools, so an agent must infer when this beats who_can_access or security_user_detail.

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