exchange_get_mailbox_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 only says 'Get,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention return shape, whether results are filtered, permission requirements, or any side effects.

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 compact sentence and front-loads the core action and object. It has no filler, though it omits useful details that could be added without bloating it.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what the caller gets back and how to provide identity, but it does neither. The tool is simple, so the gap is moderate, but the definition is still under-specified for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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 only parameter, identity, is not explained in the description. The property name is somewhat self-evident, but the description does not clarify acceptable formats or whether it refers to a mailbox alias, UPN, GUID, or other identifier.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair, 'Get mailbox permissions,' and adds concrete examples (FullAccess, SendAs), so an agent can tell what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like exchange_get_mailbox or exchange_get_cas_mailbox, but 'permissions' is a distinct target.

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 wording implies the tool is used when mailbox permission details are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over other mailbox-related getters. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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