bourne_discover

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

All annotation hints are false, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It adds useful context: the discovery is bounded/local, a new snapshot is persisted, and the snapshot is immutable, implying no destructive change to existing data. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter action this is reasonable.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it gives the action, scope, and result. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no input parameters, which simplifies the context. However, the description leaves the boundary between bourne_discover and bourne_site_discover ambiguous, and the phrase 'bounded local' is not explained, so the agent may still struggle to know when this tool is the right choice.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already completely captures the input surface. The description therefore has no need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description names a concrete action ('Run ... compute-site discovery') and a concrete outcome ('persist a new immutable inventory snapshot'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling bourne_site_discover, so it misses the top score.

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 usage context: call it when you want bounded local compute-site discovery and a persisted inventory snapshot. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as bourne_site_discover or bourne_inventory, leaving the decision to inference.

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