discover_input_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context by noting coverage extends to classes the project or a plugin added, which affects whether a class name is trustworthy. It redundantly restates 'Read-only' (already in annotations) and does not describe ordering or freshness, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: scope, the action-driving directive, then sibling differentiation, followed by an inline return shape. Every sentence earns its place; only the redundant 'Read-only' clause is slightly wasteful but does not detract.

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 zero-param inventory tool with no output schema, the description supplies the exact return shape ({modifier_count, trigger_count, modifier_types, trigger_types}), coverage scope, and the correct workflow position. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing param-specific to clarify, and the description appropriately spends no words on inputs.

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+resource ('one-call inventory of what Enhanced Input offers in this build') and precisely scopes the contents: value types plus every concrete modifier and trigger subclass, including project/plugin additions. It explicitly distinguishes itself as a superset of list_input_modifier_types and list_input_trigger_types, so an agent can separate it from those siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Run it before add_input_trigger / add_input_modifier so you pass a class that actually exists instead of guessing a name.' It also explains why it supersedes the two narrower list tools (same lists, one at a time), leaving nothing to inference.

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