discord_diagnose_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: findings come back with a concrete fix attached, which tells the agent the output is actionable rather than a raw dump. It says nothing about cost, latency, or required bot permissions for the diagnostic itself.

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, zero filler: the capability list, the output promise, and the read-only/routing note. The scope enumeration is front-loaded and each item in it corresponds to a real diagnostic area rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still flags that findings include fixes. Combined with annotation-covered safety, the only gap is operational: no hint about permissions needed or how long a full sweep takes on a large server.

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 single guild_id parameter has full schema description coverage including a snowflake pattern, so the schema does the work. The description only implies server scoping through 'the server's configuration' and adds no format or edge-case guidance, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 resource ('Diagnose the server's configuration end to end') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: bot permission baseline, Community prerequisites, channel slots, per-channel visibility, role hierarchy, AutoMod, intents, env flags. That enumeration makes the scope unmistakable, though it never names overlapping siblings such as discord_find_permission_problems or discord_verify_setup, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Run this first when something behaves unexpectedly' gives a clear trigger condition and positions the tool as the entry point of a diagnostic flow. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or which narrower sibling (discord_check_tool_permissions, discord_explain_permissions) to prefer once the problem is localized.

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