discover_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns ranked tools with their schemas, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits, such as whether the operation is read-only (likely discoverable), has side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a discovery tool, these details are important for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Find data tools...') and then adds supporting detail. There is no unnecessary text. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for key aspects), but given its brevity, it is effective.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (with no schema descriptions), no annotations, and an output schema that likely explains the return format, the description should cover parameter semantics to be complete. It does not. The intended use as a discovery tool is stated, but agents need to understand the 'module' and 'limit' parameters to use it correctly. Thus, the description is incomplete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema has three parameters ('query', 'module', 'limit') with no descriptions (schema coverage 0%), and the description does not explain any of them. The description only says 'Find data tools relevant to a natural-language need,' which vaguely relates to 'query' but does not clarify 'module' or 'limit.' Without parameter explanations, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Find data tools relevant to a natural-language need.' It also specifies the output: 'Returns ranked tools with their argument schemas.' Additionally, it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'call_tool' by suggesting a usage order: 'Use this first, then invoke the chosen tool via call_tool.' This provides strong differentiation from its primary 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?

The description provides a clear usage guideline: 'Use this first, then invoke the chosen tool via call_tool.' This indicates a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to other siblings like 'list_modules' or 'plan_query,' which could help agents decide between them. The guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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