Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• discord_send_embedA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully documents the fallback behavior for 'guild_id' to DISCORD_DEFAULT_GUILD_ID, but omits critical behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this creates a persistent public message.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args block. Given the necessity to document 7 parameters with zero schema coverage, the length is appropriate and every line adds necessary value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description adequately covers the complex input schema (including the nested fields structure), but lacks information about return values (no output schema exists), error scenarios, or side effects that would be expected for a messaging tool with no annotations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage. The Args block compensates perfectly by documenting all 7 parameters with clear semantics and useful examples (e.g., '3447003 for blue' for the color parameter, and structure details for the fields array).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool sends a 'rich embed message' (specific verb + resource) to a Discord channel. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'discord_send_message' by specifying 'rich embed', though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a conditional usage rule for 'guild_id' (required when channel is a name), but fails to specify when to choose this tool over the plain 'discord_send_message' alternative or mention any prerequisites like bot permissions.

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

• discord_list_channelsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies 'text channels' (excluding voice/categories) but omits pagination behavior, required permissions, rate limits, and error handling for invalid guild IDs.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Optimal structure: single sentence stating purpose, followed by Args section. No redundancy, front-loaded with key verb, appropriate length for tool complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool without output schema, but gaps remain regarding return format (channel objects structure), pagination, and permission requirements that would help agent invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 0% description coverage. Description compensates by defining guild_id as 'The Discord server/guild ID'. Could enhance with snowflake format note, but adequately covers the single required parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clear specific verb ('List') + resource ('text channels') + scope ('Discord server'). Distinguishes from siblings (read_messages, send_message) by operation type.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Implied usage through clear naming and verb choice, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or prerequisites like bot permissions.

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

• discord_read_messagesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses constraints like 'max 50' and fallback behavior to DISCORD_DEFAULT_GUILD_ID, but omits safety profile, permissions required, or response format details.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Args section. Every line provides essential information without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  While all input parameters are well-documented, the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps regarding the return message structure and operational safety profile that the description does not fill.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: channel (ID or name), guild_id (conditional requirement), and limit (default/max values).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent messages from a Discord channel'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like discord_send_message and discord_list_channels.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear parameter-level guidance (e.g., 'Required when channel is a name' for guild_id), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools regarding when to read versus send messages.

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

• discord_send_messageA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the guild_id fallback behavior (DISCORD_DEFAULT_GUILD_ID) and conditional requirement logic, but fails to mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling patterns for this mutating operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is optimally structured with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by an Args section. Every line provides essential information without redundancy; the examples ('general' or '123456789') are high-value additions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given three parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input semantics and validation logic. Minor gap: no mention of return value or success indicators, though the absence of output schema reduces the burden slightly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate fully. The Args section excellently documents all three parameters: channel includes format examples (ID or name), content defines the payload, and guild_id explains conditional requirement and environment fallback behavior.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb ('Send') + resource ('plain text message') + target ('Discord channel'). The 'plain text' qualification effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool discord_send_embed, clarifying this is not for rich embeds.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by specifying 'plain text,' suggesting discord_send_embed for rich content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for embeds').

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