cfg_check_file_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool checks and flags permissions, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. No side effects or authorization requirements are mentioned, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a checking tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specifics. No extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 is provided, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., list of flagged files, summary). For a checking tool, the return format is crucial for the agent to interpret results. This is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter. The description provides context about what files are checked but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema's description. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks file permissions on MCP config and credential files, with specific conditions (mode > 600, world-readable .env). The verb 'check' and resource are well-defined, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like cfg_audit_mcp_config which likely audit broader configuration aspects.

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. The description implies its use for checking permissions, but does not provide conditions for when not to use it or suggest other tools for related tasks. The context is clear enough, but lacks exclusionary advice.

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