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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden for a write operation. It discloses only that a JSON confirmation is returned (largely redundant with the existing output schema) and says nothing about required permissions (e.g., ADD_REACTIONS), idempotency of duplicate reactions, or rate limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Structure is clean, though the parameter lines duplicate the schema and slightly inflate length for a three-parameter tool.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the input schema is fully documented, so the description is functionally sufficient for calling the tool. The one gap is authorization/permission context for a mutation, which the absence of annotations leaves unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including emoji format examples and required flags. The description's Args block restates the same meaning without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond it, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (add) and resource (emoji reaction on a Discord message), which no sibling tool duplicates. An agent can immediately distinguish this from message-sending or pinning siblings.

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 only implied by the tool's obvious purpose; there is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or what to do instead. For a self-evident single-purpose action with no competing sibling, this is adequate but unguided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important idempotent-style behavior ('Creates or retrieves'). It says nothing about required permissions, whether re-opening an existing DM has side effects, or rate limits, which matters for an unannotated mutation.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a useful clarification, then standard Args/Returns blocks. The Args entry is somewhat redundant with the schema but nothing is bloated or buried.

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?

Return values are covered by an output schema, so the description need not explain them, and it correctly points to the channel ID as the handoff value for later tools. Only gap is the absence of permission/caveat detail expected when no annotations are present.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The Args block restates 'The Discord user ID to open a DM with' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema's own description.

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 ('Open a direct message (DM) channel') and adds the create-or-retrieve semantics, which distinguishes it from the send-oriented sibling. It never names discord_send_dm explicitly, so the routing is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 only implied: the 'Returns ... which can be used with other tools' line hints at a two-step workflow (open channel, then send), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs discord_send_dm guidance. An agent can infer the intent but must reason about it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms this is a mutation and that a JSON object of created channel details is returned, but omits permission requirements, Discord's channel-creation rate limits, and default/derived behavior for the new channel — significant gaps for a write operation.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and tight. The Args/Returns block largely duplicates schema and output-schema content but stays short, so the cost is minor.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain the return value, and the two required params are schema-documented. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the missing permission and failure-mode context leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely restates them. No syntax, format, or constraint detail is added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new text channel in a Discord guild'), which the agent cannot confuse with read/message siblings like discord_list_channels or discord_send_message. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any sibling tool, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. requiring Manage Channels permission), and no note about what happens if a channel with the same name already exists. The agent gets a purpose but no selection or precondition context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits the critical fact that deletion is irreversible and typically requires MANAGE_MESSAGES or message ownership. Only the return shape ('JSON confirmation of deletion or error details') is disclosed, which is minimal for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence, and the rest is short. The Args/Returns scaffolding is redundant with the schema but is not verbose enough to be a real problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the two required params are fully covered. Where it falls short is behavioral completeness for a destructive tool with no annotations: permission requirements and irreversibility are left unstated.

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% and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so the Args block merely restates channel_id and message_id. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format or constraint 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 and resource ('Delete a message from a Discord channel'), which is unambiguous against read/edit siblings like discord_edit_message. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., editing or soft-deleting). Nothing tells the agent when this destructive call is appropriate versus other message tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ownership restriction and that a JSON result is returned, but says nothing about required permissions/scopes, rate limits, or what happens to embeds/attachments when content is replaced.

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?

Front-loads the action and its key constraint in two short sentences before the boilerplate Args/Returns blocks; nothing is padded or ambiguous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (the Returns line is redundant but harmless). The description covers purpose, precondition, and params adequately for a simple 3-param mutation, though permission requirements are unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args section merely repeats the same descriptions, adding no syntax, format, or ID-source guidance beyond the structured data.

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 (Edit) and resource (a message), plus scope ('previously sent by the proxied Discord account'), which distinguishes it from sending or deleting a message among the siblings.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: only messages sent by the proxied account can be edited. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., delete + send) for messages that can't be edited, but the constraint is explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a complete usage guide, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. These omissions are relatively minor given the tool's zero-parameter, informational nature.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is somewhat repetitive: 'Get a comprehensive guide' and 'Returns: Complete usage guide' convey the same idea, and the middle sentence partially repeats the first.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the task is simply to return documentation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing essential is missing for invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, and the schema already covers the empty argument object.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive guide for using the Discord Bot tools'. It clearly distinguishes this meta-tool from the sibling action tools like discord_send_message or discord_list_guilds.

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 as a help/reference tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the other Discord tools, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the purpose alone, but explicit guidance is absent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result ('channels with their IDs, names, and types'), but says nothing about permissions/bot membership requirements, pagination, or whether channels of all types are included. For a low-risk read this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then the helper pointer, then structured Args/Returns blocks. The Returns section partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers what is called, how to get the parameter, and roughly what comes back. The only gap is auth/permission expectations, which is minor given the low complexity.

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% with a single, well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by pointing the agent at discord_list_guilds to resolve the guild ID, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List all channels in a Discord guild'), which is immediately distinguishable from write siblings like discord_create_text_channel. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling tool, but the purpose is 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 tells the agent how to obtain the required guild_id ('Use discord_list_guilds to find guild IDs'), which is genuinely useful context. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or exclusions relative to the other listing tools (discord_list_members, discord_list_guilds), so usage is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the listing covers all guilds the proxied account has joined and that each entry has an id and name, which establishes a read-only, unfiltered behavior. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, empty-result behavior, or auth requirements for the proxied account.

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 scope sentence is well front-loaded, but the return shape is stated twice ('Returns a list of all guilds with their IDs and names' followed by 'Returns: JSON array of guild objects with id and name'), which is pure redundancy. That repetition wastes space, especially since an output schema already exists.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description supplies what is needed: the resource, the account scoping, and a rough return shape. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on pagination or empty results would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No argument-related guidance is needed.

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 (list) and resource (Discord servers/guilds), with the important qualifier that it is scoped to the proxied account's joined guilds. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as discord_list_channels, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point for guild IDs needed by channel-related tools, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is silent on how the member list is paginated, whether limit caps at some server-side maximum, whether results are ordered, and whether special permissions are needed. The only behavioral note is the return type, which the output schema already covers.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the Args/Returns blocks are short. The Args section is largely redundant with the schema, which slightly blunts the value of the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations at all, the definition leaves permissions and pagination behavior entirely unaddressed, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 the schema already documents both guild_id and limit, including the default of 100. The description's Args section merely restates that information without adding format, range, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'List members of a Discord guild (server).' That cleanly separates it from siblings like discord_list_guilds and discord_list_channels, which return different entity types. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., bot permissions/privileged intents required to enumerate members), and no mention of when another tool would be preferable. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action and mentions a JSON return, but omits key behavioral details like required permissions, whether pinning is idempotent, the channel pin limit, or what happens if the message is already pinned.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, then short Args and Returns sections. The Args and Returns duplicates the schema and output schema somewhat, but the description remains compact and well-structured overall.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, with no annotations, it should disclose more behavioral context such as permission requirements or side effects, which are currently 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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description merely repeats the schema text for channel_id and message_id without adding any syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what is already available.

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: 'Pin a message in a Discord channel.' This distinguishes it from sibling message tools like send, read, edit, delete, and search, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as required permissions (e.g., MANAGE_MESSAGES), and no context for when pinning is appropriate or not.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default (50) and maximum (100) message count and the shape of the response, but says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, or how to page beyond the 100-message cap.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose in a single sentence. The Args/Returns sections are slightly redundant against the schema but are not verbose.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return shape adequately. The main gap is pagination guidance for retrieving messages older than the most recent 100.

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 both channel_id and limit are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely restates them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read recent messages from a Discord channel'), so an agent immediately knows it is a channel-history read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling discord_search_messages, which is the only reason it falls short of a 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_search_messages, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the bot must be a member of the channel). Usage is only implied by the word 'recent'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the arguments and the return type. It says nothing about Discord search limitations (e.g., guild-wide scope, permission requirements, rate limits, pagination, or ordering of results) that an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the argument list. The Args/Returns sections largely duplicate the schema and the output schema, which is mild waste but not bloat.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly notes the JSON array return. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it omits scope, permission, and result-limitation context that materially affect correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (channel_id, query, limit) are already documented in the schema with the same wording the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search for messages in a Discord channel'), which is clear and immediately actionable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling discord_read_messages, so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search versus discord_read_messages, and no mention of prerequisites such as required Discord permissions for search. The only usage signal is the implicit 'query-based' framing of the word 'search'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms the operation is a send and that a JSON result is returned, but says nothing about bot permissions, whether the bot must share a guild with the recipient, rate limits, or failure modes when DMs are closed — significant omissions for an external-facing write operation.

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 single-sentence summary is front-loaded and clear, but the Args block duplicates schema descriptions that already exist and the Returns line is redundant given the output schema exists. Some content does not earn 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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them and the Returns line is unnecessary. The missing pieces are operational: permission requirements and whether a DM channel must pre-exist, which leave the definition merely adequate.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args section merely restates recipient_id and content verbatim without adding format, ID-source, or length-limit guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send a direct message (DM) to a Discord user'), which is clear. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling discord_send_message (channel message) or discord_create_dm, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling discord_create_dm, which an agent might reasonably need to call first to open a DM channel. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutating write operation, nor does it disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Only the return shape is mentioned, which is largely covered by the output schema.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. The Args/Returns structure is slightly formulaic but efficient.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a write tool with no annotations, the description should still cover permissions or failure modes, which it omits, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description merely restates them without adding format, constraints, or example values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Send) and resource (message to a Discord channel), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling discord_send_dm, leaving the agent to infer the channel-vs-DM distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer discord_send_dm or discord_create_dm. The presence of those siblings makes this omission notable, and the agent gets no routing help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a passive read of the proxied account and what fields come back, but says nothing about auth requirements or whether the proxy connection must be established first, so behavioral coverage is only partial.

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?

Reasonably short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The trailing "Returns: JSON object with the Discord account information" restates what the body already said and duplicates the output schema, adding minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and with no parameters there is little else an agent needs. The description is sufficient for a simple identity lookup, though it could have noted the auth/proxy prerequisite.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve, and the description correctly indicates the call needs no input.

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 ("Get information about the currently proxied Discord account") and enumerates the returned fields (username, ID, discriminator). It is clearly the identity-lookup tool among action-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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 "currently proxied Discord account" - an agent can infer this reports the proxy's own identity - but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternates. For a zero-parameter identity tool the implication is adequate, but no guidance is actually stated.

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