ts_discover

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

The description classifies the tool as 'Read-only, PII-safe,' which compensates for the absence of annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits. It also mentions default scanning of all transcript projects. However, it does not detail side effects or output structure beyond high-level summaries.

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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then covers defaults, format options, and safety. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary wording.

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 tool has four parameters and no output schema. The description explains output categories (Findings, adoption summary) but does not detail the fields or structure of the returned data, which may require agents to infer from examples. For an analysis tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each format option returns (ranked Findings vs. adoption summary) and emphasizing the project filter, which goes beyond the schema's enumerated descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning Claude Code transcripts for missed Token Savior opportunities and reporting adoption ratios. The verb 'Scan' and resource 'Claude Code transcripts' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like ts_execute by focusing on analysis, not execution.

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 explains default behavior (scans all projects) and how to filter with 'project' parameter, and describes format options. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ts_search or ts_execute, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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