discord_report_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reports results to Discord but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens when thread_id is null. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool that interacts with an external service.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and interaction with an external service like Discord, the description is too minimal—it lacks context on authentication, error handling, or integration specifics. It's adequate but has clear gaps in operational completeness.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters (title, summary, details, thread_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already explains, such as clarifying the format of details or when to use thread_id. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: '작업 완료 또는 단계 완료 시 결과를 Discord에 리포트한다' (Reports results to Discord when a task or step is completed). It specifies the verb '리포트한다' (reports) and the resource 'Discord', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like discord_notify or discord_ask_decision beyond a brief usage guideline.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '결정 질문 없이 진행 상황만 공유할 때 사용한다' (Use when sharing progress without decision questions). This distinguishes it from discord_ask_decision (which likely involves questions) and implies it's for progress updates rather than notifications or inbox management, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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