list_embeds

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 mentions scanning and listing messages with embeds, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or how it handles pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter. The description adds some context about returning data for editing, but lacks details on performance, error conditions, or side effects that would help an agent use it correctly.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (scanning and listing messages with embeds) and adds necessary context (returning data for editing). There's no wasted language, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and output.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (scanning messages with specific content), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and the purpose of the output, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output definition, it should ideally describe the return format more explicitly, though it hints at it with 'ID de messages, titres, descriptions, et toutes les infos des embeds'.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('channelId' and 'limit'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to, as the schema adequately defines the parameters.

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 specific action ('Scanne un channel et liste tous les messages avec des embeds'), identifies the resource (Discord channel messages with embeds), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_messages' (general message reading) or 'get_embed_details' (detailed analysis of specific embeds). It specifies the exact scope: scanning for messages containing embeds and returning comprehensive embed information for editing purposes.

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 implies usage when you need to find and edit embedded messages in a Discord channel, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'read_messages' for general message retrieval or 'get_embed_details' for analyzing specific embeds. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context with sibling tools.

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