app_emojis_list

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the per-app scope, the 2,000-item ceiling, and the return shape. This gives the agent a solid mental model of what to expect without contradicting any annotation.

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 well-structured with bolded sections for purpose, usage, non-usage, and return value. Every section earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded. There is minimal redundancy and no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, constraints, default behavior, the key alternative, and the return structure. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, and the parameter description already states that application_id is the owning app and that omitting it uses the authenticated bot application. The tool description mostly restates this same guidance, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List custom emojis registered against the application,' and immediately clarifies the scope as 'per-app, not per-guild' with a 2,000 limit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like emojis_list_guild and other emoji mutation tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to inspect app-level emojis usable from any guild, and when not to use it: guild-scoped emojis should go to emojis_list_guild. It also explains the optional application_id behavior for the authenticated bot, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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