discord_get_invite

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it works for any public invite (beyond openWorldHint) and returns a JSON object. No contradictions; it complements annotations with scope details.

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?

Three concise sentences: what it does, scope, and read-only nature with return type. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Sufficient for a simple lookup tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, scope, safety, and return type. Could improve by mentioning error handling (e.g., invalid code), but not essential.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the parameter (look up details) and the output content (target server/channel, usage stats). This goes beyond the parameter's type and format.

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 looks up details for a single invite by its code, including target server/channel and usage stats. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or list invites.

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?

It explicitly says 'Works for any public invite, not just this server's,' indicating broad applicability. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for own-server invites (e.g., list_invites), leaving some ambiguity.

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