List User Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by describing error payloads with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404) and the default behavior of company_id from procore_set_config. No contradiction with annotations.

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 reasonably compact but contains redundancy: 'Required parameters: company_id' repeats the schema, and 'Read-only — it changes nothing' repeats annotations. The contradictory 'single JSON object' phrase adds confusion without value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but a couple of sentences could be tightened.

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 description covers error behavior, configuration defaults, and the endpoint reference, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, the 'list' versus 'single JSON object' contradiction and the unexplained 'which user permission' statement leave uncertainty about the actual return shape and selection criteria. This is adequate but not fully complete for a straightforward tool.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It does not enrich Accept-Language, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Returns the list of privileges/permissions for the current user' at the company level. However, it creates ambiguity by also saying 'Returns a single JSON object describing the user permission' which conflicts with the 'list' framing. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_user_permissions_project', making selection potentially confusing.

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 tool gives one usage hint: 'Use this when you already know which user permission you want and need its full field set.' This is ambiguous because there is no parameter to specify which permission. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., the project-level equivalent) or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent receives insufficient decision-making context.

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