permission_audit

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the purpose but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The term 'audit' implies checking but is not explicit.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though could benefit from a bit more structure.

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 complexity of auditing permission issues across an organization, the description is too brief. It does not mention the output format or what the report contains, even though an output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 'owner' has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify its format (e.g., org name vs. ID). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 audits an organization for permission issues, specifically mentioning outside collaborators and direct access bypassing teams. The verb 'audit' and resource 'org permission issues' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like team_access_review by focusing on org-level issues.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like team_access_review or repo_health_audit. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor exclusions.

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