get_server_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of auth requirements, whether the read is org-scoped, or what the permission settings actually represent. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes no extra behavioral 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?

A single short sentence with no filler; appropriately sized for a no-argument read tool. It is front-loaded with the verb, though it is too terse to carry much structure.

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 zero-parameter read operation the description is minimally viable, but there is no output schema, so the agent gets no signal about what the returned permission settings look like or in what scope they apply. That gap is small but real.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already implies. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Get current server permission settings"), so the agent knows it's a read of permission configuration. However, "server permission settings" is vague — it doesn't say which server, which scope of permissions, or how it differs from permission-related siblings like assign_permission_set or list_metadata. The purpose is identifiable but not sharp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool for inspecting permissions versus assigning them.

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