commands_get_guild

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the return format—specifically that name and description remain raw while untrusted_text is a separately fenced copy—which goes beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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?

Two short paragraphs, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second explains returns. No fluff, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-id nature, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's operation. The return field explanation is a bonus even though an output schema exists, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with clear meanings (guild scope, command ID, application ID), covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one guild-scoped command'), and the identifier ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like commands_list_guild and commands_get_global by specifying the guild scope and the target being a single command.

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 implies usage when a specific guild command needs retrieval by its ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as commands_list_guild or commands_get_global. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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