list_channel_permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioural burden and does little with it. It does not confirm the operation is read-only, say whether it needs elevated permissions, mention pagination, or explain what a 'permission overwrite' resolves to; only the output grouping is hinted at.

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?

A single economical sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It earns its place, though the trailing 'broken down by role and member' phrasing is slightly awkward shorthand.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description at least sketches the return structure, which is the most valuable thing it does. It still omits permissions, error behaviour, and pagination, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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?

There is a single parameter (channelId) already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or what happens if an invalid ID is supplied.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all permission overwrites for a channel') and adds a useful scope qualifier ('broken down by role and member'). It implicitly separates the tool from mutation siblings like upsert_role_channel_permissions and delete_channel_permission, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing to or away from the neighbouring upsert_/delete_ permission tools. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to those writers purely from the verb 'List'.

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