list_user_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists permissions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug' and 'limit' as 'Maximum number of results (default: 50)', which are already clear from the schema titles and default value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by providing additional context (e.g., format of 'repo_slug' or constraints on 'limit'), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unhelpful parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'List user permissions for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('user permissions for a repository'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_permission' or 'list_group_permissions', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_permission' (which might retrieve a single user's permission) or 'list_group_permissions', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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