Which files decide, in what order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool reports (existence, parsed status, rule count, path anchor meaning) and that it lists files in precedence order. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but the informational nature is evident. It adds useful behavioral context beyond a generic list.

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 two sentences: the first defines the tool's output and scope, the second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with core functionality, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully enumerates what the tool returns (existence, parse status, rule count, path anchor meaning) and covers precedence order and use cases. It is complete for a single-parameter listing 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 100% coverage for the only parameter 'dir', including its meaning and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as enumerating every settings file that can contribute permission rules, in documented precedence order, with specific details per file (existence, parse status, rule count, path anchor semantics). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating use cases like 'when a rule is not taking effect' or 'when you cannot tell which file granted something'.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when a rule is not taking effect, when you cannot tell which file granted something, or to confirm a managed policy is or is not present.' It lacks named alternatives or explicit 'when not to use', but the guidance is clear and context-rich.

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