discord_get_bot_permissions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description enumerates what the report contains — server-wide perms, role position versus owner, and whether each permission other tools depend on is held — which tells an agent what diagnostic signal it gets back. The 'Read-only' sentence merely repeats the annotation, but the diagnostic framing adds real value. It does not mention rate limits or whether the report evaluates channel-level overrides.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports, then the safety profile, then the trigger. Every sentence carries information an agent uses; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, contents, safety, and the failure-recovery trigger adequately. The one remaining gap is routing: an agent cannot tell from this text why it should prefer this tool over the several other permission-diagnostic siblings.

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% and the single guild_id parameter is documented with format constraints in the schema, so the description need not elaborate. It adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact scope of what is reported (server-wide permissions, role position vs. owner, per-permission checks), which an agent can distinguish from generic permission tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like discord_check_tool_permissions, discord_explain_permissions, or discord_find_permission_problems, which occupy adjacent territory.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: call this when another tool fails with 'Missing permissions'. That is a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when another permission tool (explain_permissions, find_permission_problems) would be the better choice.

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