github_repos_get_collaborator_permission_level

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

Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what the output format is (e.g., role string), or any authentication requirements. The word 'permissions' is vague.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from slight elaboration to improve clarity.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should cover return value expectations (e.g., permission level such as admin, write, read) and clarify that the user must be a collaborator. It currently lacks these details, making it incomplete.

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% but descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'username'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics (e.g., what owner represents, what username refers to). Baseline of 3 for high coverage is reduced because the description provides no augmentation.

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 'Get repository permissions for a user' clearly identifies the action (get) and resources (repository permissions, user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove collaborator or list collaborators, but could be more precise by specifying 'permission level'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_collaborators or check_collaborator. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., user must be a collaborator) or when not to use it.

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