list_pinned_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination/limit behavior, no permission requirements (e.g. View Channel), and no ordering (pinned order vs chronological). 'List' weakly implies a safe read but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint (in a channel) is stated immediately. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter list tool.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. However, 'List all' leaves pagination and result shape unaddressed, and no annotations compensate for that gap.

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% with a single 'channelId' parameter already documented as 'Discord channel ID', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, ID-source, or validation detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (pinned messages) scoped to a channel, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as read_messages or pin_message/unpin_message, which keeps it short of a 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?

The description only restates what the tool returns; it never says when to prefer it over read_messages or how it relates to pin_message/unpin_message. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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