discord_list_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the privileged-intent requirement and the resulting Missing Access failure mode, which annotations cannot express. The 'Returns:' line largely restates the output schema, so it earns less credit.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and then the critical precondition, with no filler sentences. The trailing 'Returns:' sentence slightly duplicates the output schema, costing a point.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant risks: the privileged intent gotcha, the exact error it produces, and the cursor-based continuation model. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (after, limit, guild_id, response_format) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the pagination loop hint via next_after, which the schema itself already states, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List server members') plus a scoping qualifier ('in join order with cursor pagination') that implicitly separates it from discord_search_members and discord_get_member. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated outright.

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 gives a real precondition (Server Members privileged intent must be enabled, else Missing Access), which is a usage condition. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over discord_search_members or discord_get_member, so the agent must guess between siblings.

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