app_emojis_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context beyond this by clarifying the app-level scope and stating the return shape ({emojis:[...], count}). No contradiction exists, and the added detail helps set expectations.

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 tightly structured with bold headers for Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, and it remains concise with no fluff.

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-only list tool with one parameter, explicit annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, scope distinction, and return format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a clear parameter description ('Application owning the emojis'), the description doesn't need to add more. It does specify the return format in the description, but param semantics are already adequately handled by 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom emojis registered against the application'), and explicitly notes 'per-app, not per-guild', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool emojis_list_guild. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with the alternative tool emojis_list_guild named for guild-scoped emojis. This gives the agent clear, actionable selection guidance.

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