Get Tracker entity direct permissions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real context by disclosing the returned shape (READ/WRITE/GRANT rights grouped by users, groups and roles) and the deliberate omission of inheritance, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the disambiguation and the mutation alternative. Zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the right categories and subjects involved. Entity type values live in the schema; the description is complete enough for correct invocation, lacking only explicit return-format detail.

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%, with entity_id and entity_type fully documented in the schema (including entity type values). The description adds no extra parameter syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: an entity's direct READ/WRITE/GRANT rights and who holds them. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tracker_entities_permissions_get by noting it excludes inheritance (permissionSources), so the agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names the contrasting sibling (entities_permissions_get) with the exact behavioral difference (no inheritance) and points to entities_permissions_update_direct for changes. It clearly frames the context, though it doesn't state an explicit when-to-prefer-direct rule beyond the inheritance distinction.

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