read_server_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious runtime behavior: empty channels are skipped without an API call, and unviewable channels surface in a 'skipped' list with a reason. It omits ordering of returned messages, rate-limit behavior, and the overall shape of the collected output, keeping it short of a 5.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in one sentence, then parameters are given in a compact aligned block; nothing is padded. The aligned-parameter format is slightly unusual but every line carries meaning, so it stays close to optimal.

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 3-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs well and hints at the 'skipped' output key, but never sketches what a collected message looks like or how results are ordered. Adequate, with a real gap on the return side.

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 0%, yet the description documents all three parameters: it names the source of server_id (list_servers), explains since_hours as lookback with its default, and gives per_channel_limit a default of 100 plus a max of 500 that appears nowhere in the schema. That fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 with scope: 'Collect recent messages from every channel and active thread in a server.' The server-wide aggregation is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with read_messages (single-channel), so the agent must infer the split from the word 'every'.

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 'recent' plus the since_hours default, and the pointer that server_id comes from list_servers is a useful grounding cue. There is no explicit when-not statement or named alternative, so the agent gets context but no routing rule.

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