get_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on permissions required to view permissions, no indication of whether results are cached or scoped to the caller's role.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for its content, though the content itself is thin rather than the structure being wasteful.

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?

For a simple, read-only, idempotent lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of what 'permission information' contains (roles, users, groups) or how response_format changes the result.

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 coverage is only 50%: library_id is documented in the schema while response_format (an enum with a markdown default) has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented response_format and its effect on output.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (permission information) scoped to a library, which implicitly separates it from the sibling update_permissions. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write distinction from the verb alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_permissions or library_operation. The description gives only what the tool returns, leaving the agent to guess the triggering context.

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