List granted permissions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by adding 'Reads only the signed-in account from Graph,' which tells the agent the call has a narrow read footprint rather than enumerating all permissions or making changes. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Reports how this server is configured'), then lists the concrete output categories, gives a practical usage trigger, and closes with the read scope. 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only diagnostic tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reveals, when to call it, and what side effects it has. Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently characterizes the return content for an agent to decide whether this tool fits the situation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object with 100% coverage. With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter-related noise.

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 opens with 'Reports how this server is configured' and enumerates exactly what it covers: enabled tool groups, delegated Graph scopes, admin consent requirements, write-tool suppression, and the signed-in account. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which perform actions on mail, files, calendar, and contacts rather than inspecting server permission configuration.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call it when a request fails with 403 or "insufficient privileges" to see whether the needed area is switched on at all.' This is a clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the diagnostic purpose is distinct from the action-oriented sibling tools, so no exclusion is necessary.

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