Get the Discovery Instrument: the fixed-fee two-week diagnostic that most engagements begin with, including fee, duration, deliverables, and how the fee is credited against a later build SOW.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload contents (fee, duration, deliverables, fee crediting). However, it says nothing about permissions, freshness, or whether the returned terms are negotiable, which a spec-retrieval tool would ideally clarify.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that defines the resource and enumerates its included fields with no wasted words. Structure is efficient and immediately usable.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the essential context: what the object is and what it contains. It is nearly complete for such a simple getter, though it omits any statement of source or reliability of the terms.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema fully covers the input contract. There is nothing for the description to add or compensate for on this dimension.
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?
Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Discovery Instrument) and immediately defines it as 'the fixed-fee two-week diagnostic that most engagements begin with,' which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_engagement_model or list_services, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'that most engagements begin with' implies when this offering is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and alternatives such as get_engagement_model are not mentioned. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.