discord_list_pins

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value with the 50-item cap and a cross-tool shape reference ('same shape as discord_read_messages items'). It does not say what happens when a channel exceeds 50 pins, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action and the hard cap front-loaded before the return-shape note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description carries little extra burden, and it correctly covers the cap and return shape. It omits what an agent should do when a channel has more than 50 pins (pagination / truncation behavior), which is the only loose end.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only loosely implies the response_format choice ('Markdown messages or JSON list') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('List the pinned messages in a channel') plus a meaningful scope cap (max 50), so it is clearly distinguishable from discord_pin_message and discord_read_messages. It stops short of naming how it relates to those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — an agent can infer it is for enumerating existing pins — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as discord_read_messages or discord_get_message, and no prerequisite/auth context.

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