Discover local targeted

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful VLAN-crossing context for a uni/multicast send, but says nothing about what comes back, whether the call blocks for the timeout duration, or how results are surfaced.

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 no filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is partly the cause of the gaps elsewhere rather than a sign of good coverage.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only terse annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about timeout semantics, the device_id broadcast default, and the shape of the discovery result. A network-send tool needs more than one sentence.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only indirectly maps 'known IP' to the required ip parameter. The timeout parameter (units? seconds?) and especially device_id's default of 4294967295 (0xFFFFFFFF) are completely unexplained, which is a real gap given zero schema documentation.

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?

'Send a DISCOVER_REQ directly to a known IP' states a specific protocol action and target, which distinguishes it from the broadcast and cloud discovery siblings by implication. The verb+resource is clear, though it relies on the reader understanding HDHomeRun protocol jargon.

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?

'works across VLANs' gives concrete context for when this is the right choice over hdhomerun_discover_local_broadcast, which is the primary differentiator. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state when NOT to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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