auth-can-i

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 states the tool checks permissions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, what authentication is needed, how it handles errors, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a permission-checking tool.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a permission-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a Kubernetes environment with many sibling tools.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 as checking if the current user can perform an action, which is a specific verb ('check') with a clear object ('perform an action'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-clusterroles' or 'list-rolebindings' that might also relate to permissions, making it less than fully distinctive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that involve permissions or resource operations (e.g., 'list-clusterroles', 'delete'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'auth-can-i'.

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