check_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 only says 'Check Redis permissions' without stating whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether authentication or specific permissions are required, or any side effects. The agent cannot determine what happens when invoking this tool beyond the vague concept of checking.

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 is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and immediately states the resource and scope. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks a description of the return value or behavior. It also does not provide guidance on when to use this tool relative to the extensive sibling list, or mention any side effects. A more complete description would state that it returns the user's permissions for the listed operations.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The operations listed in the description are not parameters but define the scope of the check. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter information (as none exist), and no further semantic explanation is 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 the verb 'Check' and the resource 'Redis permissions', and specifies the exact operations it covers (insert, update, delete, create, drop). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data or set_data, which perform data operations rather than permission checks. It is specific, direct, and unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool should be used to verify permissions before performing mutation operations such as set_data, delete_data, create_key, or drop_key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is left to the agent to infer.

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