axom_mcp_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what 'chain parameter' does ('act on discovered resources'), describes filtering capabilities (glob patterns, type filters), and mentions 'comprehensive discovery' for the 'all' domain. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Discovery Domains, Filter Options, Chain Support) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a multi-domain discovery tool, though the 'Filter Options' section lists options not directly mapped to schema parameters (e.g., 'importance' isn't a schema parameter), creating minor redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple domains) and rich annotations (4 hints), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains domains, filtering, and chaining behavior. The main gap is lack of output schema, so return values aren't described, but the discovery focus makes this less critical than for mutation tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds some semantic context: it explains what 'domain' values mean (files=list/search, tools=list MCP tools, etc.), mentions filter options (pattern, type, memory_type, importance), and clarifies 'chain' purpose. However, it doesn't provide significant additional parameter details beyond what the schema offers.

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: 'Discover available resources, structures, and capabilities' with specific domains enumerated (files, tools, memory, capabilities, all). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze', 'exec', 'memory', and 'transform' by focusing on discovery rather than analysis, execution, or transformation operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by listing discovery domains and filter options. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the domain-based structure implies usage scenarios (e.g., use for 'files' discovery vs. 'memory' operations with axom_mcp_memory).

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