Request permissions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool reports permission-request status and does not silently grant operations, which is especially valuable given the potentially misleading tool name.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or repetition. The core scoping qualifier is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is placed immediately after, making the definition easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description omits critical invocation context: how arguments should be structured, when permission requests apply, and what the status report covers. For a tool with 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions, this is not complete enough.

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%, yet the description explains none of the six parameters. It gives tool-level context only, leaving agents to infer the meaning of tool_name, permission, scope, ttl_seconds, reason, and arguments from names and enums alone. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 is specific: it names a verb ('Report'), a resource ('scoped permission-request status'), and an important exclusion ('without silently granting operations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like exec_command and apply_patch that actually execute operations.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or workflow context. The relationship to exec_command and apply_patch is only implied by the schema's tool_name enum, not stated.

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