describe_permission_modes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is an informational/read-style tool returning content (explanations, risk warnings), but it never explicitly states safety traits such as being a non-mutating operation, or what happens on failure. The 'risk warnings' mention adds modest value beyond a bare one-liner.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the risk-warning behavior into the same breath. Slightly more structure (e.g., flagging it as read-only) would raise it further.

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 simple informational tool with two optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essentials: what it returns and its content scope. It does not describe return structure, but given the tool's low complexity, this gap is minor.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both boolean parameters. It touches on 'risk warnings', which maps to include_risks, but never explains include_examples — the examples dimension is entirely absent. One of two parameters is unaddressed, and neither parameter's effect on output shape is clarified.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Return human-readable explanations of MCP permission modes') and indicates the content scope (what each allows/blocks, risk warnings). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like recommend_permission_mode or get_profile_permissions, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention alternatives such as recommend_permission_mode or explain_blocked_tool, nor when an agent should choose this over them. There are no exclusions or routing hints.

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