user_permissions_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions automatic pagination and the structure of records, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or authorization requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise with three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers behavior (pagination), and the third details output. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary information.

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 tool has 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output format and pagination. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but for a list tool with a good schema, this is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it references pagination behavior but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves (maxPages, pageToken). The schema already provides clear descriptions, so the tool description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 that this tool lists all user permissions for a GTM account, with specific details on the output (user email, account and per-container access levels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like user_permissions_get by focusing on listing all permissions and automatically handling pagination.

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 implies usage for listing all permissions but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., user_permissions_get for a single permission). It provides context by mentioning automatic pagination, which helps the agent know it handles large result sets, but lacks direct 'when-not' guidance.

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