get_user_permissions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only analysis but never confirms it, and says nothing about permissions required, whether it traverses nested groups, how expensive the analysis is, or what the 'security risk assessment' actually returns.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the body repeats itself: 'identifies potential security risks' and 'Provides security risk assessment' say the same thing twice. One of those sentences could be replaced with genuinely useful information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and hints at a risk-assessment output. But with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left unsure what the response contains and how it differs from get_user_groups.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Username to analyze permissions for'), so the schema already does the work. The example (username="jsmith") reinforces format slightly but adds no new semantics beyond the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get effective permissions for a user') and adds a secondary capability ('identifies potential security risks'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_user_groups, which also covers group-derived access, so the distinction between 'permissions' and 'groups' is left to inference.

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 never states when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_user_groups, audit_admin_accounts, or get_privileged_groups, even though these clearly overlap. The example only shows syntax, not a decision context, so no real usage guidance is provided.

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