permission_prompt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds context about the tool's registration as a permission-prompt handler, but does not disclose what happens when invoked, what permissions look like, or what the return value contains. This is minimal added value beyond the annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded, with only two sentences. The second sentence is truncated with an ellipsis, which is a structural flaw, but the text remains focused and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter complexity, the description should clearly explain the tool's behavior and return value, but it does not. It leaves ambiguity about how the agent should interact with permission prompts and what occurs after invocation.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter mechanics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as handling Claude permission prompts via MCP, naming a specific resource. However, the verb 'handle' is vague and does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., approve, retrieve, relay). It does distinguish from siblings by mentioning permission prompts, but lacks precision.

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 statement that it is 'Registered as --permission-prompt-tool so Claude routes all permission…' implies the tool is invoked automatically by Claude for permission prompts, giving some usage context. No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, but the routing info offers implied guidance.

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