acc_get_folder_permissions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it explains that permission levels are named only when they match a standard ACC level, and that inheritance is disclosed. This goes beyond the bare read-only annotation without contradicting it.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key output attributes. No wasted words, and the most important verb ('List') is front-loaded.

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 simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The only minor gap is that the phrase 'standard ACC level' is not elaborated, but this is a domain detail rather than a critical omission.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (Folder URN, Project id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists who can access a folder, and the specific aspects covered (users/roles/companies, permission level, direct/inherited). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_set_folder_permissions and acc_remove_folder_permissions, which are write operations.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'list' and the resource (folder permissions), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but the context is reasonably clear.

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