trw_request_tool_access

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

No annotations are provided, but the description effectively discloses key behaviors: single-use grant, telemetry logging, TTL capped at 5 minutes regardless of ttl_seconds. It does not mention error handling or results of unused grants, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences long, each sentence providing essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then guidelines, then parameter nuance. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains input parameters and behavior. It mentions session scope, logging, and TTL limits. It assumes domain knowledge about 'phase-masked', which is acceptable for a specialized tool. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what happens after the grant is used or expires.

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 for its three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the grant is single-use and the TTL is capped at 5 minutes, which goes beyond the schema's default and maximum description. This helps the agent understand the effective behavior.

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 grant single-use access to a phase-masked tool. The verb 'grant' and resource 'phase-masked tool access' are specific, and the description distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on access control rather than actions.

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 specifies when to use the tool: for genuine cross-phase or emergency-debug needs when a tool is masked. It also advises caution due to telemetry logging. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context of siblings makes the usage clear. Slight gap in mentioning when not to use.

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