Run setup check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that failed checks come with fixing instructions, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. The first sentence lists checks, the second adds output and usage guidance, front-loading the main purpose.

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?

Given no parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output (failed checks with instructions). It could mention the output format but is adequate for an agent to decide to invoke.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param details. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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 that the tool performs an end-to-end health check of the Omnicord setup, listing specific aspects checked (token, intents, guild count, membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other tool claims to be a comprehensive health 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Run this first when anything misbehaves.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (first step in troubleshooting) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like get_bot_info.

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