get_persona_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It's a read operation by nature ('Get'), and the description's phrasing is consistent with a safe read. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when 'state' is omitted (presumably returns all permissions), the return format, or whether it returns actions/operations for the role at the given state. The description is adequate but adds little beyond what the name and schema already suggest.

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?

One concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words, no filler. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. Could arguably be slightly more informative (e.g., mention that omitting state returns all permissions), but as-is it's efficient and readable.

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?

This is a relatively simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but omits details like default behavior when 'state' is absent, the nature of the returned permission data, and how this relates to the work order lifecycle. For a tool with an optional state parameter, it would be helpful to state what the default behavior is. Given its simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for more completeness.

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%, so both 'state' and 'persona' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the semantic framing that state 'scopes permissions' to a 'given work order state', which slightly enriches the schema's mention of 'WO state to scope permissions'. However, it doesn't add meaningful new meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides only marginal value (clarifying that the state is a work-order state).

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 'Get what a persona/role can do at a given work order state' uses a clear verb (Get) with a specific resource (persona/role permissions) and context (work order state). It's distinct from siblings like get_transitions or get_validation_rules, which focus on workflows and rules rather than role capabilities. It's clear but could sharpen by naming a specific output (e.g., 'permissions list') or confirming the subject is work-order permissions rather than generic system permissions.

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 states 'at a given work order state' which implies the state parameter scopes results, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't differentiate when someone should call get_persona_permissions vs get_transitions or get_validation_rules. There's no when/when-not guidance, just a general sense that this answers role capability questions.

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