discord_read_messages

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 mentions a 'configurable limit' but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned messages. This is inadequate for a read operation in a complex API like Discord.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of Discord's API, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication, and how it fits among sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies 'limit' controls the number of messages retrieved but doesn't explain the 'channelId' parameter's purpose or format. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't sufficiently compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'messages from a Discord text channel', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_forum_post' or 'discord_get_forum_channels', which also retrieve content but from different Discord resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'discord_get_forum_post' for forum-specific retrieval, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.

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