discover_tools

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful context by clarifying that enabling affects the session catalog and that the fallback `call` path runs only supported read/index tools, never source edits.

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 front-loads the main capability. The second sentence is dense but still earns its place by covering the fallback behavior and edit exclusion.

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 five-parameter discovery tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, fallback execution, and edit exclusion. It could be more explicit about return shape, but the schema carries most parameter detail.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly. The description reinforces the `call` and `enable` semantics but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 names specific actions (discover, enable, return schemas) and the resource (experts/tools), making the tool's role understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search or grep, so it stops 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?

It provides a conditional for the nested `call` parameter and a clear exclusion ('never source edits'), but gives no explicit guidance on when to use `discover_tools` versus alternatives such as `search`, `grep`, or `status`. Usage is implied rather than fully stated.

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