etat_serveur

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does make the central safety claim: the server is not modified. However, it says nothing about required bot permissions/intents, whether the call is rate-limited or expensive on large servers, or how state is scoped — meaningful gaps for a snapshot tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the read-only constraint is placed at the end where it qualifies the whole action. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is arguably under-packed rather than optimally structured.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned surface (server, channels, roles, permissions), which is what an agent needs to know before calling. Missing only operational detail (auth requirements, response shape specifics) to reach full completeness.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly makes no claims about inputs.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Lire") and enumerates the resources returned: serveur, salons, rôles, permissions. The clause "sans le modifier" implicitly separates it from the many mutating siblings (creer_salon, modifier_role, supprimer_role), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 read-only framing implies this is the inspection entry point before acting, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings such as permissions_salon or calculer_permissions, nor any precondition. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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