get_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose a key non-obvious trait: the API limitation means item-level permission requests are not honored. It does not go further to explain what happens with the required item_id parameter or any auth requirements, but the main behavioral surprise is addressed.

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 only two sentences and contains no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the important API limitation is provided as a brief, focused note.

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?

The description covers the central scope shift to workspace-level permissions, but it leaves a significant gap: the item_id parameter is required yet unexplained, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. An agent can invoke the tool, but may be confused about why item_id is necessary and what exactly the response will contain.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter's meaning beyond implying 'workspace' is the target workspace. The required item_id parameter is especially problematic: the note says item-level permissions are unsupported, but the description never clarifies why item_id is required or how it is used.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('role assignments for a workspace'), so the tool's purpose is immediately obvious. The note about Fabric REST API not supporting item-level permissions distinguishes this from item-level permission operations and reinforces the workspace-level scope.

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 a clear usage context by explicitly stating that item-level permissions are not supported and that workspace-level role assignments are returned instead. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as set_permissions, but the caveat effectively tells an agent what to expect and when 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.