calculer_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the calculation is local, has no network access, and performs no modification. However, it does not explain determinism, error behavior, required permissions, or what the return value represents, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the purpose and follows with the most important safety constraint.

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?

There is no output schema and the only input parameter is undocumented. For a calculation tool, the description should clarify what 'noms' represents and what result the agent should expect; it omits both, so the agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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% and the description never explains the sole required parameter 'noms'. An agent cannot tell whether these are role names, user names, permission labels, or something else, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare array-of-strings schema.

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 states a specific action (calcul) and resource (permissions usuelles Discord), and qualifies it as local. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling permission tools such as permissions_salon or role_membre, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool instead of permissions_salon, role_membre, or other permission-related siblings. The only usage context is implied by 'calcul local', with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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