discord_get_member_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves permissions and gives no insight into behavior such as how it resolves conflicts between guild and channel permissions, whether permissions are combined or overridden, or whether an error occurs when insufficient context is provided.

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 with no filler or redundant wording, and the key resource ('member permissions') is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete: it fails to explain the relationship between guild_id and channel_id, whether at least one scope is required, and what the output represents. While the output schema exists, the input semantics are not sufficiently defined for an agent to reliably construct a valid call.

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 adds some meaning by mapping member_id to the member and guild/channel to the permission-scope alternatives. However, it does not explain whether guild_id and channel_id are mutually exclusive, optional, or how they interact, leaving important semantic gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('a member's guild or channel permissions'), and the phrase 'member's' distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_channel_permissions and discord_get_role_permissions. It is not perfectly specific, as it doesn't state whether it returns computed effective permissions or raw permission data, but the core purpose is clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not clarify whether to pass guild_id, channel_id, or both. The single sentence describes what the tool does but not the conditions that should trigger its use or any exclusions.

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