edubase_get_scorm_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., 'Check' aligns with readOnlyHint) but does not elaborate on what the check entails or the output format, which is partly mitigated by the existence of an output schema.

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 purpose. It is not verbose, but it could be more structured (e.g., including a brief note on return type). Still, it is efficient for a simple tool.

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 permission check with a complete input schema and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about what constitutes a 'permission' or how the result is returned. Given the many similar permission tools, a bit more differentiation would improve completeness.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Check if a user has permission on a SCORM learning material' clearly states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SCORM learning material'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling permission tools for other entities (e.g., edubase_get_course_permission) and from other SCORM-related tools (e.g., edubase_get_scorm_tag).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like edubase_post_scorm_permission for assigning permissions or edubase_delete_scorm_permission for removing them, nor does it specify contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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