get_access_info

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context they cannot: it needs only System.View, checks privileges on the root folder only, explains that not_granted_at_root is not the same as no access, that undetermined means vCenter did not answer, that Kubernetes calls (TKC, VM Service, kubeconfigs) cannot be checked and report undetermined, and that namespace writes need Namespaces.Configure. This is exactly the value-add the dimension rewards.

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?

It is longer than average but front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core purpose, and every clause carries load — the Gotchas block encodes non-obvious failure interpretations rather than filler. Slight density could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (target, account, privilege states, per-tool requires/verdict/meaning, or all tools grouped by verdict) plus the caveats that would otherwise mislead an agent interpreting results. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 about parameter effect: with 'tool' it returns requires/verdict/meaning for that one tool; without it, every tool grouped by verdict. That behavioral differentiation of the optional parameter goes beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific statement of what it returns — the account the server uses and whether it holds each tool's vSphere privileges. No sibling tool (get_harbor_info, get_supervisor_status, the namespace/TKC CRUD tools) does permission introspection, so it is immediately distinguishable.

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 a permission error, or before a write, to check what the configured account may do.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of a full when-not/alternative framing, but there is no competing sibling to route away from, so the gap is minor.

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