buzz_emoji

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the data source is the merged NIP-30 kind:30030 sets of all members, and the image URLs are returned as text and never fetched server-side, which matters for privacy and latency expectations. It stops short of noting ordering or result-size 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?

Two compact sentences plus a read-only note, all front-loaded: what is listed, what the output looks like, then how the optional filter behaves. Nothing is padding; even the closing clause carries new information about URL handling rather than repeating the annotations verbatim.

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-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and non-destructive annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, filter behavior, and result shape. The remaining omissions are minor: sort order, whether results are paginated or capped, and what an empty emoji set yields.

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 the schema already documents the single `query` parameter, and the description's 'filters by shortcode substring' largely restates it. The only marginal gain is confirming the match is on the shortcode rather than the emoji name or URL, which the schema wording already conveys.

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 ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('the workspace's custom emoji... the union of every member's NIP-30 kind:30030 set'), and it also declares the return shape (:shortcode: plus image URL). No sibling tool in the list covers emoji at all, so the agent can distinguish it from buzz_react, buzz_profile, and the other workspace tools without opening a schema.

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 word 'Optional' tells the agent the call works with no arguments and that `query` narrows the result, which is enough to decide between a full listing and a filtered one. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus another (e.g. when resolving a shortcode while composing a message with buzz_react or buzz_post), and no exclusions.

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