Audit server security

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the closing 'Read only; it changes nothing' merely restates that without adding context such as permission requirements or rate limits. The genuinely additive part is the disclosed output shape — findings ordered high to low, each with a fix — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishes the verb, the framing, and the output ordering before the long checklist, so nothing is buried. The enumeration is lengthy, but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the audit actually covers in the absence of an output schema.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the scope of checks and the structure of the results (ranked findings with remediation). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the guild argument, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'guild' accepts a name or ID and can be omitted for the default guild. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Review a server's security') and then enumerates the exact checks performed (everyone-role powers, Manage Roles escalation, bots with Administrator, 2FA for moderators, AutoMod, webhooks, permanent invites). This is far more specific than the sibling 'get_audit_log' and lets an agent distinguish a posture audit from a log read without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the attacker-mindset framing and the enumerated checks make the intended scenario clear, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / not when…' and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent must infer that this is for security posture review rather than log retrieval or generic server update.

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