get_user_permissions

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

The description is transparent about prerequisites (Grafana 8.0+, RBAC enabled) and possible failure (404 on older versions/instances). Since no annotations are present, it carries the full burden and does so well, though it does not detail every error condition.

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 generally concise and well-structured, but there is slight redundancy between 'Get permissions granted' and 'Lists the permissions granted.' Overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameter, return format, and operational prerequisites. It does not over-explain, but the lack of explicit output schema details in the visible content is mitigated by the stated return description.

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 only provides a title for connection_name, but the description includes an Args section explaining it as 'Name of the Grafana connection.' This compensates for the lack of schema-level detail and fully covers the single parameter.

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 tool's purpose: getting permissions granted to the authenticated user. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_user by emphasizing the return of action-to-scope mappings, making its specific resource and action 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?

It provides useful context for when the tool is appropriate ('checking what the current API key or session can access') and notes version/RBAC requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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