Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'check for additional tools' but omits what happens upon invocation: return format, whether it is read-only, side effects, limitations, or rate limits. This is a significant transparency gap for a meta-tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and primary usage condition. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?
Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It clearly covers what the tool does and when to use it, making it minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, read-only nature) and does not describe what 'additional tools' means in practice, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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% and the parameter already has a clear description ('A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it'). The tool description adds a usage hint ('even if existing tools could work as a fallback') but does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Check for additional tools.' It also gives a specific purpose (benefiting from specialized capabilities) which distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools. The tool is positioned as a meta-tool for discovering other tools, so it is unambiguous.
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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities.' It even clarifies to use it 'even if existing tools could work as a fallback,' which is a strong usage directive. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries, notably getEntityDescriptor and listEntityDescriptors share identical descriptions, and getEntityDetails may be confused with them. This ambiguity could easily lead an agent to select the wrong tool for a catalog lookup.
Most tools follow a camelCase getXxx/listXxx pattern, but there are clear exceptions like query_docs and get_more_tools that use snake_case, and the verb set includes get, list, query, and search. The mixed conventions are still readable but not fully consistent.
With 31 tools, the surface feels oversized, especially considering the redundant descriptor tools and the meta-tool get_more_tools. The scope is broad but could benefit from splitting into separate servers for catalog, metrics, and other functions.
The tool set is almost entirely read-only (get/list/search/query) with no create, update, or delete operations, despite descriptions mentioning 'manage your service catalog'. This leaves significant lifecycle gaps and prevents full catalog management workflows.
