get_access_requests_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'View' strongly implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, nor does it clarify what is included (e.g., pending vs. all requests) or any return format details. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic structure.

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?

A single, short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but requires the agent to infer the exact output structure and when to use it relative to sibling access-request tools. It lacks details like whether the tree includes filtering or statuses, and it doesn't compare to list_access_requests.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description accurately summarizes the output without needing parameter explanations, matching the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states it returns a hierarchical tree view of access requests grouped by asset group, identifying both the resource and the organizational structure. The verb 'tree view' distinguishes it from flat listing or single-fetch tools like list_access_requests and get_access_request.

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 implies use when a hierarchical representation by asset group is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_access_requests or get_access_request. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit.

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