Check Shared Access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, establishing the safe, non-mutating nature. The description adds context about 'via their org' and 'required access level', which is useful. But it does not disclose return format or behavior on insufficient access. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Check') and clearly communicates scope. No filler or repetitive information. It earns a 5.

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?

The tool is low complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool checks and the org-based logic, and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior. Missing is an explicit statement of the return type (e.g., boolean), but for a simple check tool this is a minor gap. Slightly above minimum viable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including detailed descriptions and an enum for required_access. The description adds a little context by explaining the org-based check, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Check whether a user (via their org) has the required access level to a resource' states a specific verb ('check') and resource (access level to a resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lyzr_sharing_list_accessible (which lists accessible resources) and lyzr_sharing_reconcile_indexes (index maintenance) by clearly focusing on a single access-check operation for a given user, org, and resource.

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 clearly conveys use case: verifying a user's access level to a specific resource. It implies the check is done through the user's org. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., lyzr_sharing_list_accessible) or state when not to use this tool. Since it gives clear context without exclusions, it earns a 4.

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