sassy_permission

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 details each action (status, set_mode, add_root, remove_root, add_rule, clear_rules), explains how modes work (strict, confirm, sandbox, bypass, and clearing override), and describes rule evaluation semantics ('first match wins'). It also mentions how the mode is derived and what status displays, offering comprehensive insight into the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured, starting with a concise purpose statement and then breaking down actions in a list. While it is lengthy due to the number of actions and parameters, each section contributes essential information and is logically organized, making it easy to scan. Slight trimming could improve conciseness, but no irrelevant content exists.

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's complexity (multiple actions, four modes, rule system, and no schema descriptions or annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what each action does, parameter usage, mode semantics, and rule priority. An output schema exists, so omitting exact return formats is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the context of each action. For example, it defines 'mode' with specific valid values, 'path' for adding/removing sandbox roots, and 'rule' as JSON with structure. Even the 'action' parameter is described with its default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 function: 'View and control the permission engine' and identifies it as the 'single front door for the four-mode safety system that gates the shell and file tools.' This specific verb-resource pairing and scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle shell, files, and other operations.

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 establishes clear context for use: it is the central interface for configuring the four-mode safety system, and it notes that the future Control Panel UI writes the same config keys. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for permission viewing/management) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes, leaving room for a bit more specificity.

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