discord_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it works without a bot token, but it does not describe the return format, output shape, or any rate-limit/auth caveats beyond that single condition.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and coverage areas. The authentication caveat is placed second, where it is easy to find, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the pre-auth condition reasonably well. However, it leaves the single input parameter completely unexplained, which is a meaningful completeness gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, check_connection, with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description never mentions this parameter, so an agent cannot tell what setting it to true changes versus leaving it at the default false.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and a concrete set of resources: local setup, optional Discord authentication, default/allowed servers, Gateway, and voice status. This distinguishes it from the resource-specific siblings like discord_gateway and discord_voice, though it does not explicitly state the relationship to those tools.

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 phrase 'Works before a bot token is configured' gives a clear usage context for pre-authentication troubleshooting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over discord_gateway, discord_voice, or discord_help, leaving the agent to infer that this is a broad diagnostic check.

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