Get a user's access (groups + permissions)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not expected to repeat safety information. The description adds that this is a combined lookup, but does not disclose error behavior, whether permissions are direct or effective, or any special values the tool accepts. This is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence provides useful routing context but is slightly ambiguous because the parenthetical about 'me' could be read as applying to get_user_access when it likely applies to get_resource. Overall it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description gives a reasonable high-level summary of the return content (groups and permissions) and points to the correct sibling for raw user records. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the shape, whether permissions are resolved/inherited, or behavior for invalid user IDs, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 fully describes user_id as 'User UUID' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail; the mention of 'me' as the authenticated user appears to refer to get_resource, not necessarily to this tool's user_id parameter. Thus the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 returns a user's groups and permissions in one call, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a user's access'). It distinguishes itself from simple user-record retrieval by mentioning get_resource for the user record itself, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need both groups and permissions together. It also points to get_resource for the raw user record, which is a helpful alternative. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference required.

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