get_guild_invites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It states a read operation (取得します) but does not disclose permission requirements (e.g., Manage Server), rate limits, or what happens when no invites exist. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one schema-documented parameter, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits useful context such as permission requirements, whether the list is paginated, or the structure of returned invite links. Given no output schema, these omissions leave the description minimally viable but incomplete.

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 single parameter guildId is fully documented in the schema with a description that mirrors the tool description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly specifies the action (取得します - retrieves), the resource (招待リンク一覧 - invite link list), and scope (特定のDiscordサーバー - specific Discord server). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_invites, which target a different scope.

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 by stating it's for a specific server's invites, which suggests it's appropriate when working with server-level invites. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_channel_invites or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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