voice_get_current_user_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned voice state fields (channel, mute/deaf flags, request_to_speak_timestamp), which goes beyond the schema and annotations. There is no contradiction with 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 extremely concise, using two labeled sections ('Purpose' and 'Returns') that front-load the core intent. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant content.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear endpoint, output schema), the description provides complete coverage: purpose, return shape, and endpoint are all included. Annotations and output schema handle safety and return details, so no additional context is necessary.

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 fully documents guild_id with a description ('Guild to query') and pattern, achieving 100% coverage. The description's endpoint mention (/guilds/{guild.id}/voice-states/@me) reinforces that guild_id maps to the guild path parameter, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('Fetch the bot's own voice state in a guild') and identifies the resource via the endpoint path. It distinguishes from the likely sibling voice_get_user_state by specifying 'bot's own', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 phrase 'bot's own' conveys when to use this tool (when needing the bot's state rather than a specific user's), which implicitly differentiates from the sibling voice_get_user_state. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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