get_my_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It lists the exact returned data: the list of permissions with [x] or [ ] markers, API key scope, and user/agent profile. This gives the agent a clear model of what to expect without side effects. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the nature of a permissions checkimplies it, and the return details add meaningful context.

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 two sentences plus a bulleted list. Every sentence earns its place: the purpose, the usage, and the return value details. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the bullets improve scannability without unnecessary fluff.

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 (no parameters, no output schema) and the description fully explains what it does and what it returns. The context is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Sibling tools are all different operations, so no additional context is needed to disambiguate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not discuss parameters because there are none to discuss, and the empty input schema fully conveys that no arguments are needed. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the permissions granted to your API key.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with proposals, projects, milestones, and other operations. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check what operations you're allowed to perform,' which is a clear when-to-use statement. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but none are necessary given the unique nature of the tool. The guidance is direct but could be enhanced by noting it is a prerequisite for understanding authorization before using other tools.

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