members_permissions_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the reference contains: permissions grouped by category and role defaults for owner, admin, accountant, and employee.

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 concise sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the core action and follows with the practical reason to use it.

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 simple read-only reference tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and when an agent should use it, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful gap. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned reference content instead.

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 a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a permissions reference, including available permissions grouped by category and default permissions for each named role. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like members_update and members_delete.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it to understand which permissions exist before setting custom permissions on a member. It does not explicitly name members_update as the alternative, but the workflow guidance is clear and sufficient.

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