discover_legacy_api_sources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read-only search. It says nothing about traversal behavior, depth/file limits, permission needs, or whether the workspace is scanned or the network is queried.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is the cause of the missing usage and parameter guidance rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. The agent does not know what a result looks like, how deep discovery recurses, or when to reach for this tool instead of its siblings.

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 description coverage is only 33% (just workspaceRoot), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. maxDepth and maxFiles remain undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to guess their effect on discovery scope.

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 verb 'Find' plus the concrete resource list (Postman collections, OpenAPI/Swagger, Insomnia exports) states exactly what the tool returns. The legacy-source framing implicitly separates it from list_api_definitions and convert_legacy_to_canonical, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_api_definitions (canonical definitions) or convert_legacy_to_canonical. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, no mention that discovery typically precedes conversion.

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