get_queue_user_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('get') without explaining return values, required permissions for the caller, error handling (e.g., user not found), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 with no redundant words or filler. It front-loads the core purpose without wasting space, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not clarify what 'permissions' entails (e.g., list of strings vs. structured objects), nor does it mention the output_format parameter's behavior or any prerequisites. For a tool with no annotations and a broader permission domain, this is insufficient.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter explanations. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('user permissions for a queue'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_queue' (queue metadata) and 'update_queue_permissions' (modifying permissions).

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 usage when needing user permissions for a queue, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context, so guidance is only inferred from the name.

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