permissions_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' is consistent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides (e.g., no mention of output format, pagination, or special conditions). There is no contradiction.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential purpose and scope.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description plus readOnlyHint and schema provide sufficient context. The term 'allowlisted' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clarified, but overall the description is complete for the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the package_name parameter refers to an 'allowlisted package'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare string constraints, though it does not explicitly name the parameter or provide format examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('requested and granted runtime permissions') and scope ('for an allowlisted package'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like permissions_set, which handles setting permissions.

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 usage (use to list permissions for a package) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling context suggests it complements permissions_set, but that is not stated directly.

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