get_permissions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the diagnostic purpose (permission errors, API token needs) which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the implied token context, or response format details that aren't covered by the output schema.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second explains when to use it. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the tool's function) comes first.

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 simple read-only tool with 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose and practical use cases well. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention what information the permissions include or the format of the response, but the output schema should cover that.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description adds value elsewhere.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'current user's permissions', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling permission-related tools (none are listed in siblings, but the agent might assume others exist). The diagnostic use case adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from hypothetical alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to diagnose permission errors and determine if a new API token is needed'. This gives practical guidance on appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (though no obvious permission-related siblings exist in the provided list).

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