Get member permissions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it resolves roles and overwrites, and returns results 'in plain language.' This goes beyond the annotation to describe what the tool actually computes and the nature of its output.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key scoping details. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, the readOnly annotation, and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core behavior and output style ('plain language'), though it does not detail the exact response shape, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the tool's readability-focused purpose.

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 three parameters. The description mentions the channel scope and server-wide behavior, which aligns with the channel parameter, but it does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as returning the effective permissions for a member, with the important distinction that it accounts for role and overwrite resolution. The scope options (server-wide or specific channel) are stated, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_permissions or explain_permissions, though it relies on the title for the verb.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need effective member permissions after permission resolution, either server-wide or in a channel. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer its purpose relative to other permission-related tools.

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