list_guilds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the data scope and that IDs are included, but does not disclose return shape, ordering, or whether all guild data is returned, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 entire description is one compact phrase with no wasted words and the key idea appears first. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though a more explicit verb like 'Returns...' would make it marginally stronger.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the returned entity and a key field (IDs). However, without an output schema, it does not fully specify the return format, and the lack of any guidance relative to sibling guild tools leaves the context incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed in the description; there is no semantic burden to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 resource (joined servers and their IDs, which is the tool's scope. It is specific enough to identify list_guilds as a listing operation over guilds, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with the sibling guild_* tools.

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 gives minimal context ('servers the bot has joined') but provides no guidance on when to choose this over siblings like guild_search, guild_tree, or guild_channels. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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