discord_list_invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context: the tool requires a specific permission (Manage Server), lists the data fields returned, and implies it only lists active invites. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral value beyond them.

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: the first states the action and output fields, the second adds permission and alternative. It is front-loaded with the purpose 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, good annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, permissions, and sibling differentiation. It lacks mention of pagination or limits, but the openWorldHint suggests dynamic results; overall, it is fairly complete.

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 100% coverage (the guild_id parameter includes a clear description). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 verb 'List' and resource 'active invites across a server', specifying the returned fields (code, url, channel, inviter, uses, expiry). It explicitly names an alternative sibling tool (discord_list_channel_invites) for scoping, distinguishing itself clearly.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it requires the 'Manage Server' permission, labels itself as read-only, and suggests using discord_list_channel_invites when filtering to a single channel. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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