get_permission_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only informational tool (consistent with 'get' terminology), but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. The description adds basic context about what information is retrieved but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple informational tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word 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?

For a simple informational tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is retrieved. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the response format or structure, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly will be returned. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'show_all_allowed' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current permission mode and allowed commands'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_permission_mode' (which modifies permissions) and 'execute_command' (which runs commands). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_current_directory' is also informational).

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 usage when needing to check permission status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_command' or 'set_permission_mode'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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