permissions_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does fairly well by explaining the resolution rule (job-level replaces workflow-level; absent means repo default) and the heuristic nature of inference, including that partial results are flagged. It falls short of a 5 because it never states that the tool is read-only and does not scan or modify files, nor what happens when no workflows are found, both of which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates sub-behaviors in order, with no filler. The run-on structure with multiple em-dash and parenthetical clauses makes it slightly harder to parse than short separate sentences would.

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?

Output values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the description covers the analysis logic, the resolution rule, and heuristic limits well. The remaining gap is the undocumented path parameter and the absence of any statement about read-only behavior, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for a repo-scanning analysis tool.

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?

There is one optional path parameter with a default of '.' and 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent reading only the description would not know what path refers to (a repo root, a workflow file, or a directory of workflows), which is exactly the kind of gap the description should close at low schema coverage.

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: it shows the effective GITHUB_TOKEN permissions of every job, infers what each job needs, flags mismatches, and prints a least-privilege permissions block. That is far more concrete than the sibling names (workflows_overview, lint_workflows, job_graph) and makes it clear this tool is the permissions analyzer rather than a general linter or graph view.

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 it is useful by describing the permissions analysis, but it never says when to choose it over lint_workflows or workflows_overview, nor when not to use it. No prerequisites or scope conditions are stated, so the agent has to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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