get_member_roles

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

The description mentions 'currently assigned', which suggests it returns the live state of role assignments. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any permissions required or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the member is not found). The 'get' verb implies no side effects, and the specification of 'role ids' clarifies the return type, so it is minimally transparent but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning: 'Get' indicates the action, 'role ids' specifies the output, 'currently assigned' adds temporal context, and 'one guild member' clarifies scope. It is appropriately concise.

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 simple tool with two clear parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks any guidance on usage relative to sibling tools (e.g., list_roles) and omits any mention of permissions or error handling. Since no annotations are present, the description alone is only partially complete; it tells what the tool does but not enough about when or under what conditions to use it.

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 schema provides no descriptions for guild_id or member_id (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from the parameter names alone. While the names are self-explanatory, the description does not add value beyond the schema, and with no coverage, it fails to compensate. No information about formats, constraints, or relationships is provided.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('role ids currently assigned to one guild member'). It is specific about scope ('one guild member'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_roles (which likely lists all roles in a guild) and list_channels. The verb and target are unambiguous.

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 implies usage: if you need the role IDs of a specific member, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_roles, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it relies on the reader to infer the appropriate use case.

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