List Discord invites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral constraint that annotations cannot express: invite codes and URLs are deliberately omitted, which prevents an agent from expecting usable invite links.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the most surprising caveat (codes/URLs omitted) placed where it will be read. Nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values. It correctly sets expectations about redacted fields; only pagination/limit behavior for large guilds is unaddressed, a minor gap for a single-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single guildId parameter, though its snowflake pattern is machine-visible. The description only hints at guild scoping ('in a Discord guild') and adds no format or validation guidance beyond the schema, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (invite metadata) plus its scope (in a Discord guild). It clearly contrasts with the write-side sibling discord_create_invite by being a read lister, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Use is implied by the 'non-secret invite metadata' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to alternatives such as discord_create_invite or audit-log tooling. An agent must infer the context.

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