Get bot info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, confirming no destructive actions. Description adds detail about the returned data (guild count, intents, version), which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. Minor gap: does not mention any permissions required or side effects, but since read-only, that is acceptable.

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, no wasted words. First sentence introduces purpose and content, second sentence adds usage context and alternatives. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 informational tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, input, output (list of fields), and alternatives. No output schema exists, but the described return content is sufficient. No gaps in context.

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 already documents the single optional parameter 'bot' with a description that matches the tool description. The tool description restates the schema's guidance but does not add new meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: returns identity and status of a Discord bot, listing specific data fields (bot user, application, guild count, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like list_servers and run_setup_check.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (to get bot info) and when to use alternatives: list_servers for configured bots, run_setup_check for full health check. Provides clear selection guidance for multi-bot setups.

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