discover_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful assurance 'No credentials are sent', which is meaningful beyond the annotations, but it does not describe probing behavior, timeout/error handling, or what discovery returns.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words, and the primary purpose is stated first. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 an open-world discovery tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does too little. It communicates the core action and credential safety, but not what discovery returns, how ports are used, or what happens when no server is found.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'host' refers to a single user-specified host, but it says nothing about the optional 'ports' parameter, leaving that parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Discover Jellyfin on one user-specified host.' This is clear enough to separate it from authenticate_server and other siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or name alternatives.

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 phrase 'on one user-specified host' implies the tool should be used when a host is known and the goal is discovery, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as authenticate_server or inspect_connection, nor does it mention exclusions.

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