discord_get_server_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that bots are counted only from the member cache, making botsInCache a lower bound and humans an upper bound. This caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to correctly interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, lists the metric categories, confirms read-only behavior, and then adds the important caching caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the read-only nature, and the crucial caveat about cached bot counts, leaving no important gap for an agent to call and interpret the tool effectively.

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 documents guild_id with its type, pattern, and description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline score 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 returns a snapshot of server metrics and enumerates the specific data included (members, channels, roles, boosts, creation date). It is distinct in content from siblings like discord_get_guild_info, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 purpose statement implies this is the tool to use when a server metrics snapshot is needed, and the 'Read-only' note signals safe usage. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate for related but different needs, such as discord_get_guild_info or discord_list_channels.

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