get_guild_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a role list, but does not disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, return format, or any side effects. For a simple read operation this is minimal but still lacks detail that could affect usage, such as whether the result is ordered or includes all roles by default.

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 that instantly conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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 a simple read operation with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the basic action but does not mention the optional filtering capabilities or the structure of the returned role list. While the schema covers the parameters, the lack of an output schema means the description could have offered a bit more context about the response format or typical usage, making it 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not reference the optional filters (adminOnly, excludeManaged, includeDetails), which are already well-documented in 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('取得します' = 'get') and the resource ('ロール一覧' = 'role list') for a specific Discord server. It is unambiguous about the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_member_roles, though the scope ('server roles' vs 'member roles') is implicit in the wording.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no contextual clues to decide between get_guild_roles and get_member_roles beyond the tool name.

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