check_permissions

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid tokens, or the return format. This is insufficient for a permission check tool.

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 concise with two lines, including purpose and parameter format examples. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slight formatting improvements could enhance readability.

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 no output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the core purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on return values, error handling, or when to choose this tool over similar ones.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains required_scopes and required_roles as comma-separated lists with examples, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the token parameter is not described.

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 checks if a JWT token has required scopes and roles, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_jwt (token validity) and decode_jwt (token decoding) by focusing on authorization checks.

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 use for permission checks but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as validate_jwt or list_token_scopes. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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