get_staff_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the return structure (dict with staff_id, permissions) and references the API call, but does not address authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, API call, and return structure. It is concise yet informative, front-loading the main purpose. Every section adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it lacks details about the permissions structure (e.g., possible actions) that would be useful for an agent, especially without an output schema.

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 only parameter staff_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond its name. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 states '取得指定員工的權限設定' (get specified staff's permission settings) and explains it queries backend access permissions for functional modules and operation levels. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools by specifying the exact resource (staff permissions).

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 mentions '適合確認員工權限配置或排查存取問題' (suitable for confirming permission configuration or troubleshooting access issues), providing clear usage context. Although it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the purpose is well-defined.

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