list_settings_notifications_discord

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only the HTTP GET path and does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, response behavior, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little beyond structured data.

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 two short lines: a plain-language summary followed by the exact API endpoint. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a parameterless read operation.

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 parameterless, read-only GET with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description is sufficient to allow a correct call. It does not provide usage routing or alternative selection, but that missing guidance is already captured under usage_guidelines.

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, so the input schema fully documents the call surface. The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and the no-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Discord notification settings') and includes the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell what the tool is for. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list_settings_notifications_* tools beyond the provider name, but the resource is clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the other notification-provider settings tools, such as list_settings_notifications_pushbullet, or versus the create_settings_notifications_discord mutation tool. The description only restates the action; the agent must infer selection from tool names alone.

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