discord_architect_read_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding useful context about the returned structure composition and its compatibility with planning. It does not discuss permission requirements or rate limits, but the output schema and read-only annotation carry much of that burden.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the output shape and scope, followed by usage and the read-only property. Every sentence contributes information without repetition.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the purpose, conceptual return shape, and when to use it. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, guild_id, and the schema description coverage is 100%, including the snowflake pattern and description. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('live server structure'), enumerates the returned components (categories, their channels, uncategorised channels, roles), and ties the output to the 'same shape a plan uses'. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like discord_list_channels and discord_list_roles by framing it as an architect/plan-compatible structure read.

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 explicit use cases: 'see what exists before building' and 'hand the result back to a model that will propose a plan'. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context for when to invoke it is clear.

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