sx_get_user_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'query', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, does not describe authentication requirements, output format, or error behavior. The description is nearly silent on behavioral details.

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 short sentence, but it under-specifies the tool's functionality. It is concise in length but not effective in conveying the necessary information to an agent. It lacks structure or any breakdown of behavior or parameters.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result will look like, how to interpret permission data, or what happens on invalid input. An agent would have to guess about the return format and edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for the param form_ids. It gives a vague hint that the tool deals with '若干单据' (several forms), which relates to form_ids, but does not explain what form_ids should contain (e.g., IDs vs names, format, valid types). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb '查询' (query) and the resource: current user permissions on several documents (若干单据). It also references the underlying operation name, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sx_capabilities, which may also relate to permissions, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not why an agent should pick it over similar tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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