sdd_check_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. It describes the output (role, tool access, summary) and the role priority order, which implies it is a read-only diagnostic tool. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require authentication, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and output, with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, the role priority, and the use case. No critical information is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds context by explaining the overall behavior and the role priority order, but it does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Check RBAC access' and the resource 'current caller', specifying what is returned (role, tool access, summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sdd_check_ecosystem or sdd_check_sync by focusing on access control.

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 explicitly mentions it is 'useful for diagnosing permission issues in enterprise deployments', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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