tool_discover_by_capability

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search action but lacks details on return format, emptiness handling, errors, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the basic operation.

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 short and starts with a clear action statement. The extra sentence about searching by name/description is slightly redundant and misleading, but overall the structure is efficient and the Args section is well-organized.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It fails to mention return value structure, pagination, or error behavior, and the unsupported claim about name/description search creates confusion.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by providing examples for 'capability' ('e.g. "data-analysis", "translation"') and clarifying the default for 'limit' ('default: 10'). However, no format or constraints are specified beyond examples.

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?

Description clearly states it finds agents by capability, with specific verb and resource. However, it also claims to search by name and description, but the schema only includes a 'capability' parameter, creating a minor inconsistency that reduces clarity.

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 indicates it is 'Ideal for task routing and agent selection,' providing context, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'tool_list_agntcy_agents' or state when not 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.