dataverse_retrieve_principal_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description correctly aligns with a safe read operation. It adds value by detailing the output (bitmask and named rights) and the use case for confirming access, which together provide full behavioral transparency.

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 brief (under 50 words), well-structured into two paragraphs, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and output format (bitmask and named rights). With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values further. Annotations fully cover behavioral traits, making the description complete for a read-only tool.

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 fully describes all four parameters with their own descriptions, so the tool description does not add parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage; the description does not compensate beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool returns access rights for a system user to a specific record, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'access rights'. The title 'Retrieve Principal Access' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dataverse_retrieve_user_privileges by focusing on a single record.

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 advises using this tool before delegating an operation to confirm user permissions, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like dataverse_audit_user_access or dataverse_retrieve_user_privileges.

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