get_permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict and adds no further behavioral context. The description implies read-only behavior but adds no insight into special cases, permissions required, or response format, which is acceptable given annotations cover safety.

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, direct sentence of four words with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 straightforward read tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of any mention of the output format or possible error conditions slightly reduces completeness, though no output schema exists to compensate.

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 coverage is 100% with a well-described 'path' parameter. The description repeats the parameter's purpose but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, resulting in minimal added value.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves permissions for a given path, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'permissions'. The example path '/vms/100' provides context, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on different resources like VMs or clusters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the presence of many sibling tools, this omission reduces clarity for an AI agent deciding among options.

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