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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only permission check with no side effects, which is adequate. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, response details, or whether the tool requires certain IAM roles to be callable.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (two required parameters with clear descriptions, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and expected inputs. It is complete for a straightforward permission-checking tool, though it could explicitly mention that the response lists which permissions are held.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it paraphrases the parameters ('specific resources' for 'resource', 'which permissions' for 'permissions'). No examples or format clarifications are provided.

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 tests which permissions the current caller has on specific Google Cloud resources. It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. While it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling gcp-iam-test-project-permissions, the resource-specific nature is evident from the title and description.

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 like gcp-iam-test-project-permissions. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as required roles, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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