check_purpose_permitted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions wildcard and hierarchical matching but does not disclose aspects like idempotency, side effects, or what happens on invalid inputs. For a check tool, more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature) would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then adds a key detail about matching capabilities. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple boolean check tool but lacks information about the return value (e.g., whether it returns true/false or a result object). Given no output schema, this omission leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that wildcards and hierarchical matching are supported, which gives practical context on how the parameters 'purpose' and 'allowedPurposes' should be used beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 tool's function: checking if a purpose is permitted under source terms, with explicit mention of wildcard and hierarchical matching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_combination_permitted' or 'check_usage_permitted'.

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 implies use for permission checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'check_usage_permitted' or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or scenarios.

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