Run setup check

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: every failed check includes fixing instructions, and the tool checks specific setup components. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it stops short of describing the output format or exact response structure.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the first lists the health check scope, the second covers failure feedback, the third addresses the bot parameter, and the fourth states when to use it. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening phrase.

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 diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what is checked, that failures include remediation instructions, the bot-selection behavior, and the recommended usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 schema already fully documents the 'bot' parameter with a clear description of its optional use and default behavior. The description echoes this guidance ('pass bot to check a specific one') but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies because 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as an 'End-to-end health check of the Omnicord setup' and enumerates the specific checks performed (token validity, gateway intents, guild count, default guild membership). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on individual resources rather than overall setup health.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Run this first when anything misbehaves.' This positions the tool as the initial diagnostic step. It also provides conditional usage for multi-bot setups: 'With more than one bot configured, pass bot to check a specific one.' No alternative tools are mentioned, but the 'run first' directive establishes clear precedence.

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