Get a user's rights in a Tracker queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the payload (rights plus their granting source: personal, group, or role), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of stating auth/permission prerequisites for reading rights.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 correctly compensates by outlining what each right entry contains and where rights originate. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only finer response-field detail is absent, which is acceptable.

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%: ``user_id`` (login or numeric uid) and ``queue_id`` (case-sensitive key or numeric id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about either parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states precisely what the call returns: the rights one specific user holds in a queue, enumerating the right types (create, read, write, grant, deny) and what verdicts appear. It also names the sibling that performs the corresponding mutation, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: reads are this tool, changes go to ``queues_permissions_update``. That names an alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not address the nearby read siblings (``tracker_queues_group_permissions_get``, ``tracker_components_user_permissions_get``), so the when-to-use is clear but incomplete.

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