permission_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — the tool reports observed configuration only and will not derive effective access — but it says nothing about permissions required to run, whether findings are point-in-time snapshots, or how a missing/unreadable ACL is represented.

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 tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero redundant wording. It is arguably slightly compressed given the caveat ('without inferring effective access') deserves more room to be actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the single-parameter surface keeps complexity low. However, with six sibling tools and no explicit routing guidance, the definition leaves the agent to guess whether this or inspect_bucket should be called first.

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?

There is a single required parameter (bucket) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains the expected identifier form (name vs ARN vs project-qualified path). The parameter is intuitive enough from its name that this is a minor rather than crippling gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and an enumerated resource set ('bucket ACLs, policy, public-access controls and ownership'), making the scope concrete. It does not name or contrast with the adjacent sibling 'inspect_bucket', so an agent must infer the boundary, which keeps it below a 5.

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 clause 'without inferring effective access' implies when this tool is appropriate (raw observation rather than computed/effective permissions), but no alternative is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given. Usage must be inferred by comparing against inspect_bucket and bucket_coverage_report.

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