github_teams_check_permissions_for_repo_legacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Check team permissions', which indicates a read operation, but does not disclose what permissions are checked, the response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free operation.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition lacks important context. It does not explain the return format, how permissions are represented, or any prerequisites. For a simple check tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% but descriptions are just param names (e.g., 'team_id'), providing no added meaning. The description does not elaborate on parameters. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the param descriptions are useless, so this does not add 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 action ('Check') and the resource ('team permissions for a repository'), and the '(Legacy)' suffix distinguishes it from the non-legacy sibling tool. This is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 on when to use this legacy version versus the non-legacy 'in_org' variant. No context about preferred usage or conditions. The description implies legacy but doesn't help an agent decide which to invoke.

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