Discord Decision MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and workflow implications, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds context about session timing and mandatory processing, but lacks operational details.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and timing, another establishing the workflow requirement. The return format is clearly documented in a separate section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains when to use the tool and what happens with pending questions. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on purpose and workflow rather than output details.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead.

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: to check for unresolved pending questions at session start. It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'pending questions', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_read_inbox' or 'discord_clear_inbox' which might handle similar concepts.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: '세션 시작 시' (at session start) and 'pending이 있으면 반드시 처리 후 새 작업을 시작해야 한다' (if pending exists, must process before starting new work). This clearly defines when to use it and establishes a workflow requirement.

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