Mhs Discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds a mild behavioral note that results are limited to already-registered devices, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or what happens on an empty registry. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing phrase 'and their explicit capabilities' is slightly ambiguous and does not earn as much as a routing or scoping clause would.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations fully cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile. Parameters are documented in-schema, leaving the description with little it must still carry. Adequate for a simple zero-required-parameter discovery call.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage ('Optional exact device tag', 'Optional exact simulated device type'), so the schema already explains them. The description mentions neither filtering nor the fact that both filters are optional/exact-match, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Discover) and resource (registered simulated devices) plus an extra output dimension (their explicit capabilities). It is clear on its own, but gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling mhs_* family (mhs_read, mhs_meta_info, mhs_health_check), so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The description never says to call this before mhs_read/mhs_write, nor whether discovery is required prior to other operations in the mhs family. Only implied usage can be inferred.

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