emergent_discover_features

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source. 'Discover and document' suggests a non-mutating lookup, and the [Browser] prefix adds context, but the description does not specify return format or whether any persistent documentation is written. This leaves minor ambiguity but is not misleading.

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 terse sentences with no redundancy, and the action is front-loaded before the usage condition. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description provides enough to know when to call and what the call accomplishes. It does not specify the exact returned artifact, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack of input requirements.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema is empty and 100% covered. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies here.

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 ('Discover and document') with an explicit resource ('available Emergent.sh features') and a clear scope restriction ('only needed for features not yet in the REST API'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that create/get/list projects, builds, previews, and credits.

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 second sentence explicitly says when this tool is needed: only for features not yet exposed in the REST API, which is a clear exclusion condition. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops slightly short of full routing guidance.

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