list_emojis

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 not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, whether the default guild scope applies when guildId is omitted, or what the returned shape is.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it stops short of earning a 5 because it carries almost no information beyond the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not disclose return content (names/IDs/URLs) or the read-only nature, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 optional guildId parameter is already documented, including its DISCORD_GUILD_ID default. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource: list custom emojis uploaded to the server. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_emoji/delete_emoji/get_emoji_details, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_emoji_details or list_stickers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-enumeration counterpart to get_emoji_details.

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