accesschk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely does not meet it. It does not say that AccessChk typically requires elevated privileges, that it may prompt for or require EULA acceptance (left entirely to the accept_eula parameter), or that recursive scans can be slow or noisy. 'Wraps Sysinternals AccessChk' is a mildly useful provenance note but conveys no behavior on its own.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The '## Return Format' block is largely wasted space because an output schema already exists and communicates the same shape.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it does so anyway while omitting more valuable context: sibling differentiation from accesschk_service, elevation/EULA requirements, and any note on cost of recursive scans. Adequate but with clear gaps for a privileged Windows inspection 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (path, target, recursive, accept_eula) are already documented with type, default, and semantics in the schema. The description adds no clarification beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource set: 'Check effective permissions on files, directories, registry keys, or services.' That is clear and actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling accesschk_service, which appears to be a narrower variant of the same capability, so an agent has no basis to choose between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative accesschk_service sibling. The only hint at scope is the enumeration of target types in the first sentence, which is purpose rather than usage guidance.

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