list_bans

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. It does reveal that ban reasons are returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination despite a limit parameter, permission requirements, or whether the call is read-only/safe. For a zero-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 efficient sentence with the key noun and the notable return detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to feel under-filled.

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 query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return content. It omits pagination/limit behavior and permission prerequisites, which an agent arguably needs before invoking a 100-item-capped listing call.

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% and both parameters (limit, guildId) are fully documented with defaults and ranges, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as ordering of results or what limit counts against.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (banned users) and adds the returned payload (ban reasons), so it is immediately distinguishable from ban_member, unban_member and get_ban_info. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_ban_info (single ban lookup) or list_members. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_ban_info.

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