get_permissions_for_db

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core function. It omits critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what authorization is required, whether it returns permissions for the current user or all users, and any rate limits or performance implications. The agent cannot infer side-effect-free behavior without explicit mention.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff. This structure efficiently communicates the core function without overwhelming the agent.

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 fetch operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to describe the output format or structure (no output schema provided) and omits usage guidance and behavioral context. A more complete description would explain what kind of permissions are returned and any relationships to other entities, but as-is it leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter 'db_id' is already described in the input schema as 'Database ID'. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. While the schema coverage effectively covers the parameter, the description misses an opportunity to specify how to obtain the database ID or any constraints (e.g., 'ID must correspond to an existing database in Metabase'). Score is baseline 3 due to adequate schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('data permissions for a specific database') with a specific scope (by database ID). This verb+resource+scope pattern effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_data_permissions' or 'get_permissions_for_group', leaving no ambiguity about its target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_data_permissions' (which might return all permissions) or 'get_permissions_for_group' (which filters by group). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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