discord_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: partial failure semantics, where each section reports its own permission error rather than failing the whole call. It stops short of covering response size, pagination, or rate-limit behavior for a multi-section read.

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 tight sentences: the scope and its five sections are front-loaded, and the permission-error caveat follows immediately. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description does partially sketch the return shape by listing sections and noting per-section errors. But for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented and optional-by-schema, it leaves the agent guessing about how to target a guild and whether missing sections mean absent data or denied access.

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 schema has one parameter, guild_id, with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions it or how the target server is selected. The pattern hints at a Discord snowflake, but nothing in the description compensates for the coverage gap or clarifies the unusual non-required status of the sole parameter.

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 ('read') and enumerates exactly which resources are aggregated (settings, roles, channels, emojis, scheduled events), plus the intent behind the aggregation. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the single-resource siblings (discord_channels, discord_roles, discord_emojis, discord_events), though the composite framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

'for planning an appearance/layout change' gives a concrete use case that implies when to reach for this over individual tools. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for single-section reads, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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