discord_get_channel_permissions

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

The description indicates this is a read-like operation by saying 'Get', which is useful, and it correctly frames the tool as returning permission overwrites rather than computed effective permissions. However, with no annotations present, it does not explain what the caller needs, whether any filtering or normalization happens, what happens when no overwrites exist, or any authorization/precondition assumptions. The full burden falls on the description, and it only partially meets it.

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 one short sentence that gets the core point across immediately without filler. Every word carries information: 'channel permission overwrites' sets the resource, and 'optionally for a specific target' covers the only optional filtering dimension stated.

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?

Given an output schema is present, the return values do not need to be re-explained, and the named tool plus its simple resource make the main call reasonably clear. The missing semantics around guild_id and the lack of any sibling-routing guidance leaves gaps, but as a single-purpose read tool this is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'optionally for a specific target', which clarifies the 'target' parameter meaningfully, and 'channel permission overwrites' implies channel_id's role. However, 'guild_id' is never described, and the description does not explain the relationship between channel_id, guild_id, and target, or whether target is a user-id, role-id, or something else.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('channel permission overwrites'), and it adds the optional target scope that distinguishes this from broader permission tools. It does not explicitly name other sibling tools, so it stops short of the strongest possible differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools like discord_get_member_permissions, discord_get_role_permissions, or discord_get_channel_permissions. Only the behavior is stated; no context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer when this tool is the correct choice.

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