list_document_access

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

The description mentions the return format (dict with status, message, and access details) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. Without annotations, this is a moderate disclosure, but it lacks details on permissions or limitations.

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 well-structured with sections for summary, prerequisites, args, and returns. It is concise with no unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisite, input, and return. It is complete given the low complexity.

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 only parameter 'doc_id' has a clear description in the Args section ('L'ID du document'), and the prerequisite guidance explains how to obtain it. This adds value beyond the bare schema, which has no description for the parameter.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'document access', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'modify_document_access' and 'list_workspace_access'. The prerequisite mention of 'list_documents' further clarifies the context.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (use 'list_documents' to get a valid doc_id), guiding the agent on how to obtain the required input. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, the sibling tools imply the scope (e.g., modify vs list).

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