List voice members

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the data source (live gateway presence) and a freshness caveat (time since Omnicord connected). This extra information is not available in the annotations alone and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence giving the core purpose and the second adding a critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 list tool with only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, the exact resource scope, and the freshness caveat. An output schema is absent, but the description implies return fields (members with mute/deafen state), which is enough for this low-complexity tool.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both guild and channel parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add further parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'list' and identifies the exact resource: members currently in a voice or stage channel. It includes the additional scope of mute/deafen state, which clearly distinguishes it from general member list tools like list_members or get_role_members.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to check current voice/stage presence) and provides context that it reads live gateway presence reflecting time since connection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some implicit differentiation.

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