discover_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It tells the user what it returns (paths, sizes, last modified times) which is useful output transparency. However, it doesn't disclose scan depth, performance implications of scanning a large directory, permission requirements, or whether scanning could interfere with systems. For an apparently read-only discovery tool, this is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then covers secondary details. It's efficient with no wasted words, listing specific example services and file types that aid comprehension. Slightly long but each clause contributes meaning.

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 discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the return value (list with paths, sizes, modified times). Given the tool's moderate complexity (two optional, mutually-exclusive parameters), the description covers the essential context: what it scans, what it returns, and the two operational modes. It could mention parameter exclusivity, but that's a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('service' and 'directory') already having descriptions in the schema. The description adds the complementary context that 'service' covers known system services like nginx/mysql/redis while 'directory' covers project-level configs like .env/.npmrc/*.json. This adds modest value beyond the schema but doesn't deeply extend parameter semantics.

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 ('Scan') with a clear resource ('system for known service configuration files') and distinguishes two scanning modes (system-wide services vs. directory for project-level configs). It clearly differentiates from siblings like read_config (which reads a config, not discovers them) and read_log (log reading). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clearly explains the two use cases: scanning system-wide for known service configs, or scanning a specific directory for project-level configs. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name sibling alternatives, the distinction between system-level and project-level scanning provides clear context for choosing parameters. It lacks explicit exclusions but the intent is well conveyed.

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