list_servers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames this as a read operation and discloses the returned fields (ID, name, member count, owner status), which is useful context. It does not mention pagination behavior, server-count limits, or any auth/permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with zero waste; the scope and returned fields are front-loaded, so the agent gets the key facts immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields (server ID, name, member count, owner status) is genuinely valuable and largely covers what the agent needs. Only pagination/scope limits are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and it does not confuse the picture.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('all Discord servers that the current account is in') and even enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_server_info (single server) or list_channels (channels within a server).

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this to discover which servers the account belongs to. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative (e.g., get_server_info for a single server) is stated, and no prerequisites are named.

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