recommend_permission_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool produces a least-permissive recommendation without mutating anything, which is useful, but it does not explain how the recommendation is determined, whether profile context influences it, or what the returned artifact looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with concrete examples and no redundancy. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context uncovered: the meaning of 'profile', the shape of the recommendation, and how this tool relates to permission-related siblings. It is adequate for identifying the tool but not for confidently using it across contexts.

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 for both parameters. It clearly maps to task_description through 'described task' and examples, but the optional 'profile' parameter is never mentioned or explained. This leaves part of the input contract undefined.

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 states a specific action ('Recommend the least-permissive permission mode') and a clear resource/input ('for a described task'), with concrete examples such as 'export data' and 'reject interviews'. It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like describe_permission_modes.

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 'for a described task' phrasing and the 'e.g.' examples imply when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as describe_permission_modes or generate_permission_change_command, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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