list_missing_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning data but does not indicate if the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. The truncated 'one-click...' implies an action but is incomplete.

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 front-loads the main action, which is good. However, it is clearly truncated, which harms structure and completeness. Conciseness is otherwise acceptable.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a truncated description, the tool is under-described. The incomplete 'one-click...' leaves ambiguity about what the tool provides. The context is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output or behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics, as none are needed.

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 that the tool returns macOS privacy (TCC) permissions that are not granted, using the verb 'Returns' and specifying the resource. However, the description is truncated, and there is a sibling 'permissions_status' that may overlap, but the tool's unique purpose is still discernible.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'permissions_status'. The description does not mention when-not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.

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