discord_gateway

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: ephemeral auto-deferral with a 14-minute response window, autocomplete returning no suggestions, and no autonomous AI replies. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful operational context.

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 compact and action-oriented, with the main capabilities front-loaded. The additional sentences are short and informative, though the final 'No autonomous AI replies' is slightly abrupt.

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 9-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. It covers interaction auto-deferral but omits key information about event reading, connection behavior, status, presence fields, and most parameters.

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%, but the description only explains the enable_interactions parameter and vaguely references cursor-based bounded reads. Most parameters (after, limit, types, status, activity, activity_type, guild_id) have no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 names concrete actions (connect/disconnect the Gateway, read events, set presence) and the resource is clear. It does not mention the 'status' action present in the schema, so it does not fully cover the tool's purpose.

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 behavioral notes but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as discord_status or discord_interactions. It also doesn't explain when to choose each action or any prerequisites.

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