discord_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the observable states (logged_in / logged_out / loading) and that it identifies the user, but it does not clarify whether the tool may launch/alter the Chrome session, what happens if Chrome is not running, or whether any side effects occur. This is a meaningful but moderate gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key instruction ('Call this first') and packs in the essential status values and user identification. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 status check with low complexity, the description is nearly complete: it states what is checked and the possible states. However, because there is no output schema, more detail about the exact return structure (e.g., how the user is identified, whether a status object is returned) would make it fully unambiguous.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already fully reflects this. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and there is no parameter information the description needs to add.

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 the tool's purpose: checking whether Discord is signed in (logged_in / logged_out / loading) and which user is active. It names a specific resource ('the dedicated Chrome') and distinguishes this as a status/preflight check from sibling tools that perform login, messaging, or tab actions.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first,' which gives clear sequencing guidance relative to sibling tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a status check the intended context is strongly implied and adequate.

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