my_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and returns permissions, but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, that it only shows the calling user's permissions, or any other behavioral traits. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying all essential 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 three parameters, two required, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter formats adequately. It could mention that it only returns the user's own permissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning. It explains 'workspace' and 'item' as names or GUIDs, and details the 'scope' parameter with examples and default, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states 'Return permissions for the current connection via sys.fn_my_permissions', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_item_permissions and list_sql_permissions by emphasizing 'current connection', making the purpose clear and unique.

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 checking own permissions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or mention of other permission-related tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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