list_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never mentions that Discord typically requires MANAGE_GUILD to view invite lists, says nothing about pagination or ordering, and the phrase 'with statistics' vaguely gestures at return content without defining it.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. The trailing 'with statistics' is imprecise filler rather than earning its place, keeping it just below a 5.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the permission context and leaves 'statistics' undefined, which matters for a tool whose whole value proposition is what it returns.

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 the single guildId parameter is fully documented in the schema including its DISCORD_GUILD_ID default. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active invites for the server'), making it clearly distinct from the write-oriented siblings create_invite, delete_invite, and get_invite_details. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_invite_details or list_servers, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to the single-invite lookup.

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