Get member permissions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds that the output is 'in plain language', indicating human-readable format. No contradictions. Does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but annotations cover safety.

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, under 40 words, front-loaded with key purpose and behavior. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (effective permissions in plain language) and the scope (server-wide or channel-specific). Could be improved by mentioning that the output is a list or set of permissions, but overall complete for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that channel parameter is for 'resolve permissions in this channel' and that permissions are 'once role and overwrite resolution is applied'. This contextualizes how the tool works.

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 returns effective permissions for a member, either server-wide or in a specific channel after role and overwrite resolution. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'explain_permissions' or 'get_channel_permissions' by focusing on resolved permissions in plain language.

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 for querying resolved permissions but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like 'explain_permissions' or 'get_channel_permissions'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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