api_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior, failure visibility, and conditional OpenAPI discovery. However, it does not mention that probe_openapi causes active network probing by default, nor any side effects or access implications of the discovery process.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core outcome and primary output attributes are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the returned map will contain and why it is useful. It could mention the overall return shape more explicitly, but the listed fields give an agent enough to anticipate the result.

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 documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation.

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-resource pair ('Build a map of the backend') and enumerates concrete output details (endpoint groups, collapsed ids, call counts, status codes, timings, failures, OpenAPI). It is clearly distinct from raw network request tools like network_get_requests, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use it to understand the API surface, and to see at a glance which calls are failing.' However, it gives no guidance about when to choose this over network_get_requests or other network/source tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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