meta_upstream_permissions

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that a 403 can occur if account lacks a method, and that it calls an internal API. It mentions no destructive actions and says it's always callable, which is transparent. A minor missing detail is rate limiting or output format, but overall good.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, internal call, diagnostic use, availability. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (present), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, when to use, behavioral notes. No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and baseline 4 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 it asks which API methods the account is allowed to call. It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('API methods'), and distinguishes from sibling meta_list_permissions by noting the difference between scope granted and actual permission.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use to diagnose 'permission denied' errors when meta_list_permissions shows scope granted. Also states it's always callable with no scope required, giving clear context for when to invoke.

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