discord_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a non-destructive action ('validate' and 'show') and adds a key behavioral guarantee: 'without exposing secrets'. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on invalid tokens, the response format, or any potential side effects. It meets the baseline but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Validate the Discord bot token'), followed by a secondary action and a safety qualification. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it validates the token and shows safety config. It doesn't detail return values, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the description's clarity about what the tool exposes.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds value by explaining what the tool does with those zero parameters, making the semantics clear. With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs: 'Validate the Discord bot token' and 'show the MCP safety configuration'. It identifies the resource (bot token and safety config) and is distinct from sibling tools like discord_current_bot_profile or discord_modify_guild, focusing on health/status rather than management.

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 clear context: this is a diagnostic tool for validating credentials and inspecting safety settings. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this as the go-to tool for health checks and configuration review, distinguishing it from mutation or data-retrieval tools among siblings.

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