List emojis

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'usage syntax,' which provides some extra behavioral context about the output. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination or whether it lists all emojis or only custom ones, which would be helpful.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loades the key action and result. While effective, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the action from the output detail), but given its brevity, it earns a high score.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions returning usage syntax but does not specify what fields are returned (e.g., emoji name, ID, URL). Missing details about pagination or sorting are acceptable for this tool's simplicity, but a bit more context would be ideal.

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 input schema has one optional parameter with a complete description in the schema itself (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool lists custom emojis in the server and includes usage syntax. It distinguishes itself from sibling emoji tools like create_emoji and delete_emoji. However, the phrase 'with usage syntax' is somewhat vague; specifying that it returns the emoji ID or name would improve clarity.

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 description implies usage through the tool name and context (list emojis in a server), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_channels or list_roles. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided, which is acceptable for a simple listing tool but leaves room for improvement.

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