bowire.discover

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does an unusually good job: it documents the attempts array outcome taxonomy (ok/empty/partial/error/timeout), guarantees that an empty services list comes with an explanation, and disambiguates 'partial' as services returned plus a fault. It omits auth requirements, timeouts, and whether discovery has side effects, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, then the parameter behavior, then the return/failure semantics. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the attempts/detail explanation is longer than strictly needed given the payoff is high.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it covers services, methods, the attempts array, its outcome values, and the optional details array. For a discovery tool with an empty-result case, an agent has everything needed to interpret the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: what happens when protocol is omitted (all registered protocols run) and that grpcDescriptorSet is ignored by non-gRPC plugins. It does restate the protocol enum rather than explain it.

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 and resource ("Run discovery against a server URL and return the discovered services and methods"), which lets an agent separate it from siblings like bowire.invoke, bowire.network.get, or bowire.mock.list without opening schemas. The scope (one URL in, services+methods out) is unambiguous.

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?

It explains the protocol filter's behavior ("without it every registered protocol that handles the URL gets a turn"), which is real usage context for a parameter choice. However, it never says when to reach for discover versus bowire.invoke or bowire.network.get, and gives no prerequisites beyond the allowlist note that lives in the schema. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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