List bans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by mentioning that results are paginated and include reasons, which are behavioral traits not covered by the annotation. This gives the agent useful expectations for the response shape without contradicting the annotation.

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 extraordinarily concise at only four words, yet it effectively communicates the tool's function, output content, and pagination behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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-only listing tool with all-optional parameters and a full schema, the description covers the essential information: what is being listed (current bans), what is included (reasons), and how it is delivered (paged). No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for the agent to know what to expect. The tool is simple enough that no further detail is necessary.

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%, so all three parameters (after, guild, limit) are documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'paged' loosely aligns with the 'after' and 'limit' parameters, but it does not add any new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Current bans with reasons, paged.' clearly states the tool's purpose: listing active bans with their reasons and pagination. The verb 'list' plus resource 'bans' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'ban_member' or 'unban_member', which are actions. It avoids tautology by adding detail about content and pagination.

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 phrase 'Current bans' provides clear context that this tool is for viewing active bans (as opposed to audit logs or historical actions), and 'paged' indicates how to handle large result sets. While no explicit alternatives are named, the description implies the correct usage scenario without unnecessary exclusions.

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