Get Tracker entity permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response shape (acl by level, permissionSources as inherited parents) and the inheritance semantics. No output schema exists, so this return-shape disclosure is doing necessary work.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its return fields, then the sibling pointer. No filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema fully documented, the only remaining burden is the missing output schema, and the description largely discharges it by naming acl and permissionSources. It stops short of describing inheritance resolution order or empty-result behavior.

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 100% — entity_id and entity_type are already documented, including the project/portfolio/goal enumeration in text. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (an entity's access settings — the READ/WRITE/GRANT ACL plus inheritance sources) and even enumerates the two return fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tracker_entities_permissions_get_direct, which is the one nearby tool whose difference matters.

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?

Points at the mutating counterpart ('Change them with ``entities_permissions_update``'), which is useful routing, but gives no condition for when to call this versus tracker_entities_permissions_get_direct or the per-queue permissions getters. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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