permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It only states 'query permissions', which implies a read operation but offers no detail on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or the structure of results. This is a minimal and uninformative description.

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 extremely short, but brevity is outweighed by under-specification. The phrase 'Example variables: {}' adds no value and seems like placeholders. The structure is not front-loaded with key information; it is just cryptic fragments.

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 large set of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the permission query returns, how to filter or scope results, or what makes this tool distinct from related access group tools. The agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on this description.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'customer_slug' with a clear purpose ('Override the x-reliaquest-customer (OpCo) header'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 'Access Groups · query permissions' mentions a verb and resource but is vague. It does not clarify what specific permission querying is performed or how it relates to the many sibling tools like 'access_group' and 'access_groups'. The dot-separated prefix 'Access Groups' is ambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'query permissions' implies a use case but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and sibling differentiation is entirely absent.

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