List emojis

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the output includes usage syntax, which is useful context, but does not detail return format or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loading the core purpose (custom emojis) and an output characteristic (usage syntax). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys that it returns custom emojis and their usage syntax. It does not explicitly mention the optional guild parameter, but the schema covers that, and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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%, and the sole parameter 'guild' is fully described ('Guild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 'Custom emojis in the server, with usage syntax' clearly states a list operation for custom emojis, distinguishing it from mutating emoji siblings like create_emoji/update_emoji/delete_emoji. The verb 'list' is implied by the title and reinforced by the phrase 'Custom emojis in the server'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer listing over creating/updating/deleting emojis.

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