tc_get_permissions

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

While annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds rich behavioral detail: return format, inheritance flag, id types (project user ids vs group ids), special id 'tc-groups:*', and file-specific constraints. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured, with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral aspects: return fields, id resolution, inheritance, and file limitations. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly and interpret results without additional documentation.

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 fully compensates by providing the meaning of each parameter: project_id is Project ID, item_id is Folder or file ID, and item_type defaults to FOLDER or FILE. It also explains constraints on item_type (files only support READ and FULL_ACCESS), which adds value beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Read the access control list (ACL) of a folder or file', which clearly states the verb and resource. It is well differentiated from sibling tools like tc_set_permissions, tc_grant_permissions, and tc_remove_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 description clearly implies when to use this tool (for reading permissions) versus modifying them. It also notes that files support only READ and FULL_ACCESS, which helps the agent know when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention an alternative tool for setting permissions, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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