get_channel_invites

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the read operation ('取得します') and does not mention permissions, rate limits, response format, or behavior when channel has no invites. Nothing is contradicted, but disclosure is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the returned invite structure, potential permission requirements, and does not distinguish behavior from get_guild_invites. This creates a gap for an agent deciding between similar tools.

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% for the single channelId parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond confirming the channel scope, so a baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('取得します' = retrieves) and identifies the resource as invite links for a specific Discord channel, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_guild_invites which target guild-level invites. The scope is explicit and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_guild_invites. The description only states what it does, without mentioning exclusions or context for choosing it.

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