permissions_get_object_ids

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read operation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'resolve' entails (e.g., whether it computes effective permissions or simply reads stored ACLs). The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 a single sentence that succinctly conveys the core purpose. It includes a potentially superfluous endpoint reference for an AI agent, but overall it is well-structured and free of fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not explain potential edge cases or limitations (e.g., number of IDs per request). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic meaning. It references the HTTP endpoint, but that is incidental and does not clarify parameter constraints (e.g., valid object_type values).

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 resolves ACLs for a list of object IDs, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like permissions_get (single object) and permissions_set (modify). The verb 'resolve' is apt for retrieving computed 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as permissions_get (for a single object) or permissions_get_levels (for available permission levels). No explicit context for use cases or prerequisites is given.

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