whodb_platform_resource_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that workspace targeting applies only to this call and does not change defaults, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or result granularity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence carries information. There is no redundant restatement or 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?

The tool is read-only, has rich annotations, and has a fully documented schema, so the description is adequate for invocation. However, it does not help choose among the many sibling access/permission tools, and with no output schema it also does not characterize what permission information is returned.

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%, so the input schema already documents workspace.host, workspace.org, workspace.project, resource_id, resource_type, fields, and team_id. The description repeats the workspace shape and per-call targeting behavior but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: "List the signed-in user's permissions for a hosted resource." This is clear enough to distinguish the operation from broad discovery or mutation tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as whodb_platform_resource_access, whodb_platform_user_resource_access, or whodb_platform_my_grants.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools for related permission checks. It only notes that a workspace target can be supplied per call, which is parameter behavior rather than selection guidance.

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