discord_catch_up

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the bounded scan behavior, message limits, per-conversation error handling, and the unprocessed message count. It does not mention authentication requirements or whether messages are marked as read, but the core behavior is well documented.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the user-facing intent and then the operational details. It is somewhat dense in a single sentence, but every clause adds meaningful behavioral information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes what the agent receives: latest messages, per-conversation errors, unprocessed counts, and a fallback list of recent conversations. It also communicates limits and defaults, though it could be clearer about exact return formatting.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of max_channels by explaining it controls how many conversations are walked, but it does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names the action ('walks the conversations with unread messages'), the resource (Discord conversations), and the result (returns their latest messages). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like discord_read_dm, which targets a single DM, and discord_list_dms, which lists DMs without returning message content.

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 establishes a clear usage context: use this when catching up on unread messages across conversations. It also specifies a sensible fallback behavior when nothing is unread, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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