github_check_team_permissions

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

No annotations provided. Description only says it audits permissions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, modifies state, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, no filler, efficiently communicates purpose and specific detection.

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 check tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks behavioral and return value context. Could be improved but not critically incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds minimal value beyond schema; the 'repo' parameter note about default behavior is already in schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action (Audit team permissions), target (admin-level access to repositories), and a specific detection code (ACC-001). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_check_repo_secrets by focusing on team 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other audit tools. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use.

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