discord_get_guild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that counts are 'approximate', which hints at estimation or caching, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This adds some value beyond the tool name but leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential purpose without any filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return values (approximate member/presence counts) and the action. It is reasonably complete, though it omits potential error cases or further details about the response.

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 schema has only guildId with a pattern; there is no description field. The tool description references 'a guild', which implies guildId is the target, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter or its format. The meaning is somewhat clear from the name and context but not fully elaborated.

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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('a guild'), and distinguishes it by specifying 'approximate member/presence counts'. This is specific and separates it from sibling tools like modify or delete operations.

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 verb 'Read' implies when to use this tool (for read-only access to guild information), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like discord_raw_guild_request or discord_members are not referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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