Invokera Discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return content (JSON Schema and REST/MCP endpoint) and the auth requirement (project's own endpoint token), which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences that lead with the main purpose, then explain what is returned and the auth token requirement. No wasted words, and all information is relevant.

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 simple introspection tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it returns, the prerequisite (search_tools result), and auth needs. No output schema means the description's explicit mention of return content fills that gap.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, with descriptions for each. The tool description minimally adds context by indicating the parameters come from a search_tools result, which is helpful but not substantial. Schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool 'Get the full input schema and calling instructions for one tool found via search_tools', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings 'search_tools' (which searches for tools) and 'invoke_tool' (which calls a tool) by focusing on retrieving metadata.

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 says the tool is for 'one tool found via search_tools', providing clear context that it should be used after searching. It also mentions the auth requirement for calling the tool (endpoint token), which is a practical prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with invoke_tool, though sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving room for additional context. The description adds that the tool requires owner opt-in, returns not-found otherwise, usage is metered to the owner, and no project token is needed—useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, constraint/alternative, and preparation. No filler, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool that invokes another, the description covers prerequisites, limitations, and the standard workflow. It omits expected return format, but since no output schema is present and the target varies, this is acceptable.

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 descriptions already explain each parameter (e.g., 'The toolName from a search_tools result'), and coverage is 100%. The description reinforces to get the argument schema from describe_tool but adds little semantic detail 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 states the tool 'calls a tool whose owner has enabled public invocation,' specifying the resource (publicly invocable tools) and distinguishing it from siblings by noting it works without a project token. It uniquely positions invoke_tool against describe_tool and search_tools, which are for discovery, not invocation.

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 'Only works for tools opted in by their owner; others return not-found (use describe_tool for how to call them with a token).' It also instructs to obtain project_slug/tool_name and argument schema from search_tools + describe_tool, giving clear when-to-use and preparation guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return format (ranked list of name, project, summary, category) and explicitly noting that input schemas are NOT returned, helping the agent set expectations and plan subsequent calls.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by a useful next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple discovery tool, the description covers the search scope, return contents (fields), and the critical limitation (no schemas). It also provides the recommended follow-up action, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use effectively without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description including defaults, examples, and enumerated values. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), identifies the resource ('the Invokera catalog'), and clarifies scope ('across all projects'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a ranked list without input schemas and directs to describe_tool for details.

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 instructs the agent to call describe_tool next for the full schema and calling instructions, establishing a clear workflow. It does not mention invoke_tool or provide explicit exclusions, but the sibling context and the phrase 'Call describe_tool next' effectively guide when to use this tool.

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