discord_get_server_stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by noting that bot counts reflect only cached members and clarifying the return format (JSON object). 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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, content, and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present (context signal: 'Has output schema: true') and the description listing all returned metrics, the description is complete. It provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what the tool returns and any important caveats (cached bots).

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (guild_id). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a snapshot of server metrics, listing specific items like total members, channel breakdown, role count, boost tier/count, and creation date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, many of which are mutation operations, by being explicitly read-only and focusing on statistics.

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?

Although no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated, the description implies usage for obtaining server statistics without modification. The read-only nature sets it apart from most sibling tools, but it does not directly compare itself to similar read-only tools like discord_get_guild_info.

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