request_access

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the Linux stub behavior and future model, but lacks details on non-Linux platform behavior, error handling, or side effects. Partially transparent.

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?

One concise sentence with a parenthetical that adds important context. No fluff, but the parenthetical might be slightly awkward. Good front-loading.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description covers Linux stub behavior but omits essential context like non-Linux behavior, error conditions, grant lifecycle, and usage on other platforms. Incomplete for an access-granting 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'applications' described as 'Applications to request access to.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'one or more applications,' which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3.

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's purpose: to request a session grant for applications. It provides specific verb ('Request'), resource ('session grant'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_granted_applications by mentioning Linux stub behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes Linux stub behavior but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or differences from sibling tools like open_application or list_granted_applications.

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