check_permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions an 'execution point' and a rule for write tools, but does not clarify side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens when permission is denied. The behavior remains largely opaque.

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 and thus concise, but it is densely packed with jargon and lacks any structural separation of concepts. It is not well-organized for quick comprehension, though it does fit in minimal space.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is insufficient. The agent is left without understanding when to invoke it, what the return format looks like, or how the permission decision is made, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While 'caller' and 'MCP' are implicit, the 'action' parameter is not mentioned, and no guidance is given for valid values or how parameters interact with the permission matrix.

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 it is a permission matrix execution point checking caller x MCP x read/write, which identifies the resource and action. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource imperative, and the term 'MX-3 收口判定' is cryptic without context, making the purpose somewhat vague.

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 hints that write tools are judged by a specific rule ('写工具按 MX-3 收口判定'), but it does not clearly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_safety_gate or classify_intent. No explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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