Test Resource-Specific IAM Permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context that the check is for the 'current caller' on specific resources and that the operation is a test, implying non-mutating behavior. However, it does not disclose response format, whether all requested permissions are returned, or any authorization prerequisites beyond the caller's existing identity.

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 that immediately conveys the core operation. It is front-loaded with the action and object, contains no filler, and aligns well with the title.

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 simple two-parameter read-style check, the description is mostly complete: it names the target resources, the permissions being tested, and the subject (current caller). The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and return-value clarification, though the schema covers the parameters well.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage, including resource name examples and the meaning of the permissions array. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Test which permissions') on a specific resource type ('specific Google Cloud resources'), and clearly identifies the caller as the subject. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gcp-iam-test-project-permissions, which targets project-level rather than resource-level checks.

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 implies resource-scoped permission checking, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as gcp-iam-test-project-permissions, gcp-iam-validate-deployment-permissions, or gcp-iam-analyse-permission-gaps. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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