aras_get_permission_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via the tool name and the phrase 'Diritti concessi', but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention required authentication or permissions, describe the response format, or note any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides a concise list of what the tool returns. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns (permission rights per identity). However, it omits details about the response structure, any required permissions to invoke the tool, or potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations and 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?

The schema covers the single parameter (nomePermesso) with 100% coverage, including an example. The description does not add meaningful extra context about the parameter value beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate parameter documentation but adds no extra value.

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 retrieves the rights granted by a permission to various identities, including read, modify, delete, and discover operations. It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like aras_get_type_permissions, which also deal with 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 by explaining what information is provided (permission rights per identity), offering clear context. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or any conditions that favor its use, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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