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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful scope by saying it covers only servers and channels the bot can access, but it does not discuss return format, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 sentences, with the action stated first and the usage condition second. No redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter and an annotation covering safety, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. Return-value details are not needed because no output schema exists.

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 single guild parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including name-or-ID semantics, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not mention the parameter or add any filtering details 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?

Specifies a clear verb and resource: listing all Discord servers and voice channels the bot can access. This is immediately distinguishable from the music-focused sibling tools such as search_songs and play_song.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: when the user mentions a channel and it is unclear which one. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling tool performs this channel-listing role.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating operation, so the description doesn't need to carry that burden. It adds value by disclosing the two pieces of state returned (connected channel and current track), but says nothing about what happens when nothing is playing or no channel is joined.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the two resources it reveals. It is appropriately sized, with no filler, though it offers no additional structure beyond that one clause.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the call returns. The only real gap is the empty-state behavior when the bot is idle or not in a channel.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantics to explain and the description correctly offers none. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 states a specific verb ('gösterir' / shows) paired with two concrete resources: the voice channel the bot is connected to and the currently playing song. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings like play_song or stop_music, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as search_songs, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that a bot must be active in a channel). The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already provide a safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it interrupts the current song and falls back to the last used channel if channel is omitted. 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main side effect, then input modes, then channel default. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies key runtime behavior: interruption, input modes, and channel default. It omits discussion of the guild parameter, but the schema fully documents it, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning for the song parameter (search text causes the first YouTube result to play) and for the channel parameter (defaults to last used channel if omitted). It does not further explain guild, but the schema already documents that parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: starts playing a song in a Discord voice channel, and notes that it interrupts the currently playing song. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_songs or now_playing.

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?

Provides useful input-mode guidance (URL vs search text, first YouTube result fallback, default channel when omitted), but gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusions relative to siblings such as search_songs or stop_music.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it lists the exact return fields and emphasizes that no playback occurs, which prevents a common misuse. It does not cover limits, error handling, or pagination, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then the critical 'does not play' clarification, then usage and follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds the no-play guarantee plus the play_song handoff. For a simple search tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('YouTube'da arama yapar') and lists the return fields (başlık, kanal, süre, URL). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Bir şey ÇALMAZ' and naming play_song as the alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus play_song.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Kullanıcı seçenek görmek istediğinde ya da doğru versiyondan emin olmak istediğinde') and when not to use it for playback ('Bir şey ÇALMAZ'). It also names the follow-up alternative: pass the selected URL to play_song.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the bot is removed from the voice channel, which is a key side effect an agent should know.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states both the primary action and its secondary effect without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple command.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool. It could optionally state behavior when no music is playing, but the idempotentHint annotation covers safe repeated calls.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4.

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 states a specific verb ('durdurur' / stops) and resource ('çalan müziği' / the playing music), and adds the side effect of removing the bot from the voice channel. It inherently distinguishes from siblings like play_song and now_playing, since it is the only stop/disconnect tool in the list.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention conditions like 'use when music is playing' or 'call this to end playback and leave the channel', leaving usage context to inference.

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