Get channel permissions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds value by explaining the output is resolved into plain language per role and member, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 zero filler. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the tool's core function.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the return value (plain language permission overwrites per role/member). It could be more complete by clarifying what 'permission overwrites' are or how to interpret the result, but it is adequate for typical use.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only relating 'channel' to permission overwrites, but does not elaborate on the 'guild' parameter or provide additional format context beyond the 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 describes what the tool does: resolves channel permission overwrites into plain language per role and member. It distinguishes from siblings like get_member_permissions by focusing on channel and covering both roles and members. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'Gets' or 'Retrieves', making the purpose slightly less explicit.

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: to get channel permissions in a human-readable format. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_member_permissions or explain_permissions, nor does it provide exclusions.

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