unifier_bp_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the operation is read-only ('solo lectura'), that it validates the shell, and that it returns view/edit/admin permissions. It omits permissions/auth prerequisites, what happens on an invalid shell, and pagination or response shape, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences that lead with the read-only framing and then the query behavior. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (read-only, who-can-do-what) is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a usable purpose and partial parameter context but does not cover the shell/project_number relationship, the status filter, or expected output. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, but not complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that record_no accepts one or several values (matching the anyOf schema) and implicitly covers bpname, but project_number and the status enum are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it queries ('consulta') who can view, edit or administer records of a BP, and explicitly frames itself as read-only permissions. An agent can tell it is a permissions-lookup tool rather than a record CRUD tool, but no sibling (e.g. unifier_list_bp_records) is named to sharpen differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many unifier_* siblings. The optional record_no narrowing is described, but the agent must infer that this is the tool for permission auditing versus plain record listing.

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