discord_get_server_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond channels and member count. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key details like parameters or usage context.

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 complexity (retrieving server details), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits like authentication needs, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use 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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions retrieving server information but doesn't explain the 'guildId' parameter's purpose, format, or how to obtain it. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score due to the coverage gap.

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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed information about a Discord server'), specifying key data elements like 'channels and member count'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata retrieval rather than message operations, channel creation, or other actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar read tools like 'discord_get_forum_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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for obtaining server details, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a guildId), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'discord_get_forum_channels' for channel-specific data, leaving the agent to infer context.

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