List Repository Permissions

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a paginated list of permissions with user info, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication details beyond the scope requirement.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by scope requirement, parameter list, and return type. No unnecessary words, and information 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?

Given 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, all parameters, and return type. It could be improved by mentioning possible permission values (e.g., read, write, admin) but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: repo_slug, workspace (optional, defaults to configured), page_size (default 30), and max_pages (default 1, max recommended 10). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default 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 'List the user permissions for a specific repository in the workplace,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspace_permissions by focusing on repository-level 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 mentions the required scope ('account') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_workspace_permissions. The context is implied by the resource type, but no explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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