discord_list_invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: the required 'Manage Server' permission, which an agent must verify before invoking. It still omits return shape/pagination, but with annotations present this is a solid addition.

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?

Two terse sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the permission constraint second. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full schema documentation and annotations, the description covers purpose and the key prerequisite. No output schema exists, but 'active invites' conveys the return subject adequately; only return formatting/pagination is left unstated.

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 there is a single required guild_id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a server's active invites') with a scope qualifier ('active') that narrows the result set. The 'list' verb naturally contrasts with the create/delete invite siblings, but the description never names or routes to them, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the stated prerequisite ('Needs Manage Server'), which tells the agent when it is even permitted to call the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over discord_create_invite or discord_delete_invite, nor any exclusions.

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