discord_architect_explain_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the reason behind the limit (GET /@me/guilds and POST /channels are restricted) and restates read-only in prose. It stops short of describing the shape of the explanation returned, though the output schema presumably covers that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the workaround. The final sentence is content-dense rather than padded, though it packs API endpoints and a multi-step workflow into one long clause that could be split.

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 zero-parameter, read-only explainer with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide to call it: what it answers, when to call it, why the limitation exists, and the manual workaround. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no argument semantics to explain. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, keeping the call signature unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and subject: 'Explain what this server can and cannot do about creating Discord servers', plus the reason (API restriction). It is unmistakably the capability-limits explainer among the architect_* family, which otherwise plans, reads, applies, and deletes structures.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use this when asked to 'create a new server'. It also supplies the when-not path in the same breath — create manually or from a template, invite the bot, then use discord_architect_apply to build the structure — naming the concrete sibling to hand off to.

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