commands_get_command_permissions

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. The description adds the return structure `{id, application_id, guild_id, permissions:[{id, type, permission}]}`, confirming it returns permission overrides for one command. While it doesn't mention potential caveats like empty overrides or authorization requirements, the annotations and simple nature of the tool make this adequate.

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 just two sentences, with a front-loaded purpose and a separate returns section. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence 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?

This is a straightforward read-only GET tool with fully described parameters and an output schema referenced in the description. The annotations and schema cover most contextual needs (safety, parameters, output), and the description adds the return shape. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the sibling tool for fetching all command permissions, but for its simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions: 'Guild scope', 'Command ID (snowflake)', and 'Bot/app application ID,' achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that the command_id is for a single command, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get permission overrides for ONE specific command in a guild,' using a specific verb and resource while explicitly scoping to a single command. The emphasis on 'ONE specific' distinguishes this tool from the sibling commands_get_guild_command_permissions, which appears to handle all commands in a guild.

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 phrase 'for ONE specific command' gives clear context that this tool is intended for querying a single command's permissions rather than all commands. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the differentiation to the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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