get_event_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It does by specifying the scope ('current authenticated user') and the nature of the returned data ('capability flags'). This is useful and consistent with the annotations, though it does not discuss response format or edge cases.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. It includes a useful example list of flags without fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 presence of a full output schema, and complete annotations, the description is complete enough. It accurately describes the core behavior and scope, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 100%, with both parameters ('event_id' and 'fields') already described in the schema. The description only adds 'by ID' and examples of capability flags, which marginally reinforces the schema but does not provide additional semantics or usage details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 retrieves the current authenticated user's permission level and capability flags for a specific Partiful event. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('permission level and capability flags') and distinguishes itself from sibling event-related tools by focusing on permissions rather than event details or guest lists.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the current user's permissions for an event. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are all read-oriented and focused on other aspects. No misleading guidance.

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