members_permissions_reference

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a read/reference tool (get permissions reference), so the safety profile is inherently low-risk. The description explains what content is returned (all permissions grouped by category, role default permissions for each role) and enumerates the roles (owner, admin, accountant, employee), which adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare 'Get permissions reference' statement.

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?

Two sentences, completely free of fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and the second provides concrete usage context. Every word 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?

For a parameterless reference tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what it returns (categorized permissions and role defaults) and when to use it (before setting custom permissions on a member). Given the tool's low complexity - zero parameters, read-only semantics - this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. There are no parameters to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description covers what output the agent can expect, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless reference tool.

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 gets 'the permissions reference' with all permissions grouped by category and role default permissions. It identifies the specific verb (get) and resource (permissions reference), and distinguishes its purpose from the member_update/member_delete sibling tools by framing it as a lookup/reference tool rather than a mutation tool.

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 explicitly states it is 'Useful for understanding which permissions exist before setting custom permissions on a member.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance tied to setting custom permissions. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the reference-vs-action contrast with members_update is implied and the keyword is specific enough to guide selection.

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