Discover Commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about scoping (all vs. matching devices) and authentication (password). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or return behavior. This is a notable gap given the lack of annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes specific, useful details without any fluff. Each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior efficiently.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and usage well, but it lacks detail on return values or output format, which is especially important given there is no output schema. It also does not distinguish itself from list_devices/discover_devices beyond mentioning search_devices. Overall, it is adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description restates the deviceTag behavior (omitting it inspects all, providing UID/IP/name fragment inspects matching) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Learn which modules and command signatures are available on live micrOS devices.' It uses a specific verb ('Learn') and resource ('modules and command signatures'), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_devices by focusing on command discovery rather than device discovery.

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this after discovering a device, after its firmware or modules change, or when `search_devices` does not show an expected capability.' It also gives scoping instructions (omit deviceTag for all devices, provide UID/IP/name fragment for matching) and notes when to use the password parameter, making it clear when and how to invoke the tool.

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