get_access_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them with real behavioral caveats: privileges are checked on the vCenter/ESXi root folder only, ``not_granted_at_root`` does not imply no access, ``undetermined`` must never be read as granted, and group-derived permissions count in the verdict but are not listed by name. These are exactly the traps that would otherwise cause misreads.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag, then cleanly partitioned into When to use / What it returns / Gotchas. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return payload (target, account, checked_on, privileges map, tool block or tools_* lists, direct permissions) and it does so. Combined with the gotchas, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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, including the 'None = all tools' default. The description adds the behavioral consequence of omitting ``tool`` (grouping into granted / not granted / undetermined) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names the specific resource — the configured account on a target and its privilege verdict for a given tool — which no sibling tool covers (all siblings are inventory/health/investigation tools). The opening sentence is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the scope is unambiguous once read with the 'What it returns' line.

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?

It states concrete triggering conditions: a tool failed with NoPermission, returned fewer objects than expected, or you want to pre-check what the account may read. It also explains the two invocation modes (ask about one ``tool``, or omit it to classify every tool), leaving nothing to inference.

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