Get My Permissions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the custom-role resolution behavior, the organization-context prerequisite, and what read-only concretely means (members, roles, teams, SSO are not changeable via MCP and require the web app). Each of these adds behavioral context the annotation alone does not convey.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use-case trigger, parameter guidance, precondition, and read-only scope. Front-loaded with the core function and free of filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (role, effective permission strings, optional permission catalog), when to call it, the organization-context prerequisite, and the boundary of what it cannot do. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving the parameter's purpose ('to map a denied action onto a name'), which explains why an agent would set includeCatalog rather than just what it does.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the caller's own role and effective permission strings in the active organization') with a distinguishing nuance ('custom roles resolved'). It clearly scopes to the caller's own permissions, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_custom_role and list_members without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('This is the tool to reach for after a permission error'), an explicit precondition ('Requires organization context'), and an explicit when-not with an alternative ('members, roles, teams and SSO are not changeable through MCP by design — a human does those in the web app'). This fully routes the agent on when and when not to use it.

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