Permission Prompt

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

The description only says it handles permission prompts, but does not disclose what actions are taken (e.g., showing a prompt, approving/denying) or any side effects. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden but falls short.

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 visible description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence is truncated, leaving the text incomplete, which slightly reduces structure quality.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and provides minimal behavioral info. It does not explain what the permission prompt shows, how it resolves, or the return format, making the description incomplete for an agent to understand the full tool behavior.

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 are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 explicitly states it handles Claude permission prompts via MCP, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling Unity tools, though the verb 'handle' is somewhat generic.

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?

It notes the tool is registered as --permission-prompt-tool so Claude routes all permission prompts to it, implying automatic usage. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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