capability_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the scan is live and enumerates the returned fields (availability, security level, risk, fallback), which is useful. However, it does not clarify caching behavior, whether refresh is expensive, permissions needed, or what 'fallback' means operationally.

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?

One dense and front-loaded sentence communicates scope, behavior, and output content without filler. Every phrase adds information.

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 simple single-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers provider scope and the key fields in the returned capability matrix. It could be more complete with a note about typical use cases or the meaning of 'fallback', but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'live' nature of the scan but adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's refresh parameter description.

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 ('Scans') and resource ('all providers') and names three provider types, plus the returned artifact ('live capability matrix'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings at a glance, though it does not explicitly contrast with capability_audit or capability_resolve.

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 implies the tool is for discovering an overall capability snapshot, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It never mentions alternatives like capability_resolve, capability_audit, or capability_restricted_routes, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate selection context.

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