bookstack_permissions_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] permission settings', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get permission settings') and specifies the target without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function in a compact form.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the permission settings include (e.g., roles, access levels), how results are structured, or potential errors. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, more detail is needed to guide an agent adequately.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema (content_type with enum values and content_id as an integer). The description adds minimal value by listing content types but doesn't provide additional context like ID sourcing or permission implications beyond what the schema already covers.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('permission settings for specific content'), and identifies the content types (books, chapters, pages, or shelves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'bookstack_permissions_update', which handles permission modifications rather than reading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare it to sibling tools like 'bookstack_permissions_update' for modifications, or specify scenarios where reading permissions is appropriate (e.g., before making changes).

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