get_channel_permission_overwrites

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains the data returned (allow+deny bitfields) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, required permissions, or output format. The added bitfield context is useful but not comprehensive.

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, tightly-written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place, explaining both what is retrieved and the structure of the data (bitfields). No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It mentions the key data structure (allow+deny bitfields) and implies the input. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining parameter specifics, but the output schema covers return details, and the tool's simplicity keeps it sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the channel_id parameter beyond implying it identifies a channel. It does not specify it's a snowflake ID, any format constraints, or how to obtain it. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, leaving an agent to infer the parameter's exact semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'permission overwrites' with scope 'set on a single channel'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_channels or get_member_roles by focusing on overwrites for a channel, and adds clarity with 'role/member allow+deny bitfields'.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need the permission overwrites of a specific channel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. No direct mention of when-not-to-use lowers it from a 5.

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