permissions_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the phrase 'declared vs granted' adds behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, or whether an extension must be loaded first, which keeps transparency at a moderate level.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or wasted content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It leaves unclear what the check actually returns (e.g., a diff, a list, or a boolean) and does not mention any preconditions like needing an already-loaded extension.

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 is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, already specifying that specific permissions can be listed and omission lists all. The tool description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and object ('declared vs granted extension permissions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manifest_validate (which validates manifest structure) and extension_load (which loads the extension) by focusing on permission comparison.

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 implies usage when comparing declared and granted permissions, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention related tools or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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