get_access_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the required privilege, what is returned (target, account, privilege states per tool or grouped by verdict), and three concrete gotchas about root-folder checking, not_granted_at_root, and undetermined.

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 the purpose, then usage, then return shape, then a labeled 'Gotchas' block. Despite its length, every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs (privilege requirement, verdict semantics, undetermined handling) with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, describing both output modes and the meaning of each verdict. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: passing tool yields that tool's requires/verdict/meaning, while omitting it returns every tool grouped by verdict. This clarifies the behavioral difference between the two modes rather than just restating parameter names.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: it reports which account the server uses and whether that account holds each tool's vSphere privileges. This is clearly distinct from every sibling (storage/datastore tools), so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when a tool fails with NoPermission, or before a write.' It even notes the low privilege requirement (System.View), removing any doubt about whether it is safe or possible to call in a failing state.

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