AIOS Public Discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is free of cost and returns no product result (implying a safe, informational probe). However, it says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or the nature of the discovery state returned, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though 'no product result' is cryptic enough that it reads as under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and a zero-param tool has no inputs to explain. Still, the description does not clarify what 'discovery state' contains or when this probe should be used, leaving the agent with a vague but not empty picture.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No param guidance is needed.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'AIOS discovery state' give a rough sense of the action, but 'AIOS discovery state' is opaque jargon that an agent cannot map to a concrete outcome. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_capability or list_capabilities, which also sound like discovery operations.

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 notes the call is 'Free' and produces 'no product result', which hints at a metadata/health-check use case but never states when to call this instead of get_capability, list_capabilities, or list_pricing. An agent gets no routing signal among four sibling discovery tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that the operation is 'Free' and targets 'stable public' IDs. It omits read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling for invalid IDs, and rate limits, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource. 'Free' is a compact and relevant cost signal.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description fails to explain how to obtain a valid capability_id or what happens if it is invalid. For a simple lookup tool this leaves a notable 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?

The sole parameter 'capability_id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the ID refers to a 'stable public AIOS capability' — a minor qualification over the parameter name — but gives no format, source, or validation details.

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 specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('one stable public AIOS capability ID'), making it clear this is a single-item lookup. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'list_capabilities' (plural) but does not explicitly name alternatives, 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_capabilities or preflight_request. It only implies usage for a single known ID, which is minimal context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ('Free') and visibility scope ('public'), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, and read-only behavior is only implied by 'List'.

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?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the cost qualifier; no wasted words. The 'Free.' fragment is terse but carries real selection value.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, return-format explanation is unnecessary, and 'public' plus 'availability' cover scope. However, the missing differentiation from get_capability and list_pricing leaves a routing gap for a sibling-heavy toolset.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AIOS capabilities and availability'), plus a scope qualifier ('public'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_capability, which retrieves one capability, 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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings list_capabilities, get_capability and list_pricing all in the neighborhood, the agent gets no help deciding between a bulk list and a single-item lookup.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'free state' versus 'introductory paid pricing' actually resolves to. The trailing 'Free.' is ambiguous rather than informative.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is vague and the disconnected fragment 'Free.' wastes space without earning its place. Front-loading is fine in length terms, but the content is not information-dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with a confusing, jargon-laden purpose and no annotations, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what the call yields or when to invoke it.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool; a higher score would require the description to explain what the no-arg call retrieves.

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 largely restates the name, then adds opaque jargon ('Public Discovery free state and intended introductory paid pricing') that an agent cannot map to a concrete resource. The trailing fragment 'Free.' adds confusion rather than specificity, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like aios_status or get_capability.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the five sibling tools. The agent is given no basis for choosing list_pricing over aios_status or list_capabilities.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits not in structured data: no substantive result is returned, and the call is free. It omits auth requirements, whether the check has side effects or reservations, and rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; 'Free.' efficiently conveys a cost attribute. Slightly terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description notes the result is non-substantive. Still missing: what 'readiness' actually verifies, whether the call is purely read-only, and how it relates to the sibling capability tools.

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 0% and the single required parameter capability_id is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning about its format, source, or valid values, so the agent must infer everything from the parameter name.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'capability readiness' are present, and 'without returning the substantive result' hints at a dry-run flavour. But the phrasing is abstract ('bounded capability readiness') and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_capability or aios_status, so an agent cannot tell exactly what it does versus them.

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?

Nothing states when to call this instead of get_capability or before a real invocation; the 'preflight' framing only implies a pre-check. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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