sec_rolePermissions

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

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds some context (requires role name, persist parameter behavior). However, with annotations already covering safety, the description adds minimal extra behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a short first paragraph defining purpose and usage, followed by a brief argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool is simple and the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose; the description could mention the return format briefly, but it is still largely complete given the annotations and schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the same descriptions without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for full coverage without enhancing understanding.

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 lists database-level permissions for a Teradata role, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools sec_userDbPermissions and sec_userRoles, which handle user-level queries.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., when user asks about a role's access rights) and warns against confusion with user-level queries, naming the alternative tools. This is a clear usage directive.

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