list_item_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses admin API usage and role requirement, and automatic item kind resolution. It does not mention rate limits, error conditions, or confirm read-only nature, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear intro line, brief notes on API and role, and clearly labeled Args. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the essentials: purpose, prerequisites, parameter format, and a documentation link. It could mention output structure or limitations, but it's largely complete.

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 0% (only title given), so the description adds meaningful value by specifying expected format: 'Workspace name or GUID' and 'Warehouse or SQL endpoint name or GUID'. This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the 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 uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'principals with access to a Warehouse or SQL Analytics Endpoint item', clearly distinguishing from permission-related siblings like grant_permission, revoke_permission, etc.

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 notes it uses the Fabric admin API and requires Fabric Administrator role, and clarifies it accepts both Warehouses and SQL Endpoints with automatic resolution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like my_permissions or list_sql_permissions.

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