discord

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, which is important, but it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, output format, or potential side effects. For a tool that groups multiple sub-commands, this is insufficient.

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, consisting of a single sentence. However, it lacks structure; listing commands inline without bullet points or separators makes it less readable. It could be more efficient by grouping related info, but it does not contain unnecessary words.

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 tool that encapsulates multiple commands (list_guilds, list_channels, read_messages, search_messages), the description is too brief. It does not explain what each command does, what inputs they require, or what outputs they produce. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context to help the agent understand usage.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. The baseline of 3 is appropriate for complete schema coverage, and the absence of parameters means the description does not need to compensate.

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 it is for Discord read-only operations and lists four specific commands. This distinguishes it from writable tools and provides a clear resource scope. However, it does not describe the functionality of each command, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies that this tool should be used for read-only Discord interactions, but it provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context-specific usage. There are no sibling tools dedicated to Discord, so the usage context is implicit.

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