What this agent can do without asking

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

With no annotations present, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral context. It discloses that the tool returns a summary containing specific details, including a note about rules that do not behave as they appear. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the nature of a summary implies no side effects. This is adequate transparency for a simple informational tool.

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 yet information-dense, with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and lists its output contents in a structured list, while the second provides precise usage guidance. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no redundant or vague language.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It covers the key aspects of the tool's functionality, though it does not explicitly describe the output format. However, the list of contents is enough for an agent to understand the tool's role within the sibling tool set.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'dir', including a default. The tool description also mentions 'directory', reinforcing the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter meaning, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is present in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a one-call summary of the permission configuration for a directory, enumerating specific elements such as contributing settings files, allow/ask/deny rule counts, defaultMode, blanket allows, hooks, and rule mismatches. This distinguishes it from siblings like permission_sources and rule_findings, which are likely more detailed or narrow in scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: at session start, before an unattended run, or when an unexpected prompt appears. This provides clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though 'Start here' implies it is the entry point to the permission investigation process.

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