superset_role_permissions_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and adds a valuable behavioral insight about the ordering requirement with role_permission_add. However, it doesn't describe the response format or any potential limitations, which is a slight gap for a read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parameter line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a critical warning, and ends with the parameter definition. No words are wasted.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It includes the essential sequencing caveat that prevents data loss. The only minor omission is guidance on how to find role IDs, but that doesn't significantly impede understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'role_id: Role ID' merely restates the parameter name without adding meaningful context such as where to find the ID or its expected format. This is barely more than the schema already provides.

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 gets the current list of permissions for a role, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like role_permission_add and role_get, especially with the added note about its role in the workflow.

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?

The description explicitly says to call this tool BEFORE role_permission_add and explains the consequence (avoiding loss of existing permissions). This provides a clear when-to-use scenario and names a specific alternative, making usage guidance unambiguous.

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