get_available_rights

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

While readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: rights are grouped by category, the available categories depend on the object, queues and global objects can have a Status category, and consumers should read categories dynamically. No contradiction with the annotation exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary behavioral nuance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, including the final instruction not to assume a fixed set of categories.

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 gives a useful high-level shape: categories with rights, varying by object type. It could be even more complete by describing the exact response fields or how rights are represented, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to object_type by explaining how different object types change which categories are returned, going beyond the schema's simple 'Type of object' 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 states a specific verb and resource: getting the rights that can be granted on a named set of object types, plus globally. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_rights, which would enumerate rights rather than object-scoped grantable rights.

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 provides useful context about how available categories vary by object type, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rights, grant_rights, or revoke_right. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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