linux_chmod

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

The description states it generates commands (not executes them), implying a safe, non-destructive operation. However, without annotations, it omits details like output format, validation behavior, or security implications, leaving gaps.

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 short but contains redundant 'Menu ID' metadata and a reference to another tool. It could be more concise and front-loaded with essential details.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter relationships, return format, or provide enough context for a first-time user, instead redirecting to describe_tool.

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 has 5 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain any parameter functionality (e.g., what 'permissions' array or 'symbolic' boolean controls). The agent must infer usage entirely from parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as a Linux Chmod Generator that generates chmod commands with visual permissions, octal/symbolic notation, and security analysis. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like linux_command_builder, but the reliance on describe_tool for full guidance slightly reduces clarity.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., linux_command_builder or other file permission tools). The description lacks context for selection or exclusion.

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