discord_read_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail ('newest first' ordering), but says nothing about pagination via 'before', default limits, or return format.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the useful ordering qualifier in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.

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 read with safe annotations this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description could disclose what a returned message looks like or how paging works. It covers the essentials but leaves the return shape implicit.

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 100%, so limit, before, and channel_id are fully documented in the schema, including the note that a thread ID works for channel_id. The description adds only the ordering of results, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent messages') with scope ('a channel or thread') and ordering ('newest first'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like discord_read_dm (DMs) and discord_get_message (single message), though it never names them.

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 'read recent messages from a channel or thread,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., discord_read_dm for DMs, discord_get_message for a single message). An agent must infer the routing itself.

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