discord_read_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'configurable limit' but doesn't specify default behavior, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Retrieves messages') and includes a key feature ('configurable limit'). There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., message objects, timestamps), error handling, authentication needs, and how messages are ordered or filtered. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It implies 'limit' controls the number of messages retrieved, but the schema already defines it with default, min, and max values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain what 'channelId' represents or provide examples, leaving parameters largely undocumented. The baseline is 3 since the schema provides structural details, but the description fails to 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('messages from a Discord text channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discord_send or discord_delete_message by focusing on reading rather than writing or deleting. However, it doesn't specify whether it retrieves recent messages, all messages, or messages from a specific timeframe, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access), compare it to similar tools like discord_get_forum_post for different channel types, or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over other message-fetching methods. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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