guild_get_welcome_screen

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by noting that descriptions remain raw server-owner data and that untrusted_text provides a separately fenced copy. This warns about untrusted payloads, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 clear 'Purpose', 'When to use', and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary fluff, making it both concise and highly readable.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and return semantics, including a security-relevant note on untrusted text. No critical gaps remain.

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 is 100%, with the sole parameter guild_id fully described by the schema. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('configured Community welcome screen'). This precisely identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like guild_modify_welcome_screen or onboarding_get.

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 'When to use' section clearly states the primary use case: 'Inspect onboarding before tweaking it.' This provides strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It implies the complementary modify tool exists, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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