get_user_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read of the caller's own state and tells the agent what information comes back (role plus permission classification), which is more than nothing. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether it requires an established eeclass session (relevant given the sibling wake_and_bootstrap_eeclass / ensure_chrome_eeclass_session tools), or what happens when no session exists.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core resource (role) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary detail (permission categories). Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter query with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the returned shape: the role enum and the CRUD permission classification. It stops short of explaining how the permission categories are represented (list, flags, per-resource map), which is the only meaningful gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the implicit 'current user' subject rather than suggesting an identifier be passed.

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 pairs a specific verb (查詢) with two concrete resources: the current user's role and their CRUD permission categories. It even enumerates the possible role values (Teacher/TA/Student/Guest), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. No sibling tool in the list does anything comparable, so there is nothing to confuse it with.

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 phrasing '目前使用者' makes it clear this is a self-scoped lookup with no parameters, but the description never says when to call it — for example, before attempting a write operation, or to gate access to teaching functions. There are no exclusions or alternatives to choose between, so the usage signal is only implied.

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