matcher-discover

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this read-only nature ('Discover', 'inspect') and adds useful context about the live slice and what facets are inspectable, such as export behavior. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every part serves a function: scope enumeration and usage guidance. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job of setting expectations for what the discovery response will cover: headers, path params, query filters, payload requirements, and export behavior. It also lists the meaningful resource categories covered in the current live slice, making it sufficiently complete for an initial API discovery tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enums and examples. The description adds general context about discovery but does not meaningfully enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Discover Matcher API resources, actions, and execution contracts.' It clearly differentiates itself from matcher-execute by stating 'Use this before matcher-execute.' The listing of covered API areas also clarifies the tool's exact scope.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this before matcher-execute to inspect headers, path params, query filters, payload requirements, and export behavior.' It provides clear context and a named alternative (matcher-execute), though it does not explicitly exclude other discover siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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