Explain permissions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context about the role and overwrite chain explanation, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions present.

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?

Two sentences: the first is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second is a short tagline that adds branding but is not essential. Overall, concise with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not specify the return format or structure of the explanation. For a diagnostic tool explaining a potentially complex chain, this is a gap. However, parameters are well-covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely restates 'server-wide or in a channel' which aligns with the channel parameter, adding minimal new meaning.

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 answers whether an actor has a given permission and explains the result via role and overwrite chains. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('answer whether... permission') and distinguishes itself from action-oriented or list-permission siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_member_permissions or get_channel_permissions. The tagline 'The preflight engine, made directly askable' implies a diagnostic use case, but no direct comparison or exclusions.

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