edubase_get_content_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns both the user's permission status and whether a permission rule with exactly the given parameters exists, which aligns with and clarifies the openWorldHint. No contradiction 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core behavior and follow up with the exact return semantics. No filler or redundant explanation is present.

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 the read-only annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It adds the key semantic of exact-rule matching without needing to duplicate schema or return details.

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 100%, and each parameter is already documented with enums and descriptions. The tool description repeats the content type list but adds no meaning beyond the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('permission level on a content'), enumerates all supported content types, and states the two return concepts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools edubase_post_content_permission and edubase_delete_content_permission.

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 clearly establishes the use case: checking whether a user has a permission level on a content item, with an explicit note that the result also indicates whether an exact permission rule exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as post/delete_content_permission, but the read-only framing and sibling names provide enough context for correct selection.

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