perm_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses return behavior ('returns only names by default; set verbose=true for descriptions') and warns of token cost, but never mentions access requirements or whether the full permission set is always visible. Partial coverage of behavior beyond structure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, usage second, return behavior third. No filler, well front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by stating what is returned by default and how verbose changes it. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the remaining gap is the absence of any safety/permission context on a read tool, which is minor.

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 schema already documents filter, verbose, and category. The description adds only a concrete example keyword ('kick') and reinforces the verbose tradeoff, which is marginal added value over structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List available permission definitions.' An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like perm_find and perm_overview, which implies overlapping lookup capabilities.

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 explains how to use the filter and category parameters, which implies a browsing/lookup context, but never says when to choose this tool over perm_find, perm_overview, or the various *_perm tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving routing to inference.

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