bourne_site_discover

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it persists a new immutable snapshot, may require existing SSH user authorization, uses only bounded typed probes, never accepts arbitrary commands, and never executes a scientific workload. These safety and side-effect details are genuinely useful and not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences compactly cover action, output behavior, parameter meaning, alternative selection, and security constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the comparison with siblings.

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 one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and strong annotation coverage, the description still covers authorization caveats, behavioral limits, and alternative tool routing. Nothing essential for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool is missing.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'reference' parameter at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that reference selects a named local or SSH site and by repeating the exact-name-or-canonical-ID constraint, giving agents better disambiguation than the schema alone.

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 plus object ('Discover one configured site and persist a new immutable inventory snapshot linked to it') and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming bourne_discover and bourne_site_inspect. An agent can immediately tell this is the named-site discovery tool rather than the context-based or inspection tool.

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?

Gives explicit direction: use for a named local or SSH site, use bourne_discover for Bourne's current local context, and use bourne_site_inspect to read existing state. It also warns that SSH discovery may require existing user authorization, giving concrete selection and prerequisite guidance.

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