Get effective permissions

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

The description states what information is returned ('effective root, hard boundaries, and tool-use policy'), which adds specificity beyond the annotations. Since readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true already signal that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, the description aligns with that and provides additional detail about the response. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) is mentioned, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It directly names the key resources returned, and every word carries meaning. The structure is highly efficient and front-loaded with the core action. This meets the standard for a well-written, concise description.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present (as indicated by the context signals), the description does not need to elaborate on return format or edge cases. The one-sentence description fully covers what the tool does. The read-only and idempotent annotations further ensure the agent knows it is safe to call at any time. Nothing essential is missing.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify any parameter meanings. The schema coverage is 100%, and there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by explaining what the response will contain, which is relevant even without inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resources ('effective root', 'hard boundaries', 'tool-use policy'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other tools in the sibling list, which are focused on code execution, workflow management, or file operations. An agent can immediately understand the purpose without needing to inspect 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any context or exclusions. However, given the tool's obvious purpose as a read-only query for permissions, the usage is implied by the name and description. There are no competing sibling tools that appear to overlap in function, so the lack of explicit guidance is a minor gap.

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