get_server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., behavior when the guild is unknown) are disclosed. Notably, the schema states guildId defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID, yet the description omits this significant defaulting behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The enumerated content adds useful signal without excess verbiage.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields (members, channels, owner, boost level, features) usefully describes the response shape. Combined with full schema coverage of the param, it is largely complete, though it could clarify the guildId default and read-only nature more explicitly.

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%, so the single guildId parameter and its default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('get... discord server information') and enumerates the returned content (members, channels, owner, boost level, features). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_server_widget or get_bot_info, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 says only what the tool returns, with no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or pointers to related tools such as list_servers or modify_server_settings. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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