get_effective_permissions

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

Description mentions the internal mechanism (SubjectAccessReview checks), adding behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and could be more specific.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly expanded to include return value hints, but remains efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of permissions, boolean, errors). For a permissions evaluation tool, this is a critical gap. Agent lacks information to interpret results.

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?

All three parameters (cluster, namespace, serviceAccountName) are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states it evaluates effective Kubernetes API permissions for a ServiceAccount using SubjectAccessReview. The verb 'evaluates' and specific resource 'permissions' distinguish it from sibling tools that list, create, or manage resources.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's unique among siblings, the description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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