discord_read_messages

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.