discovery_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool takes no arguments, returns a one-line summary with specific fields, and implies it is read-only (reports state). It does not mention side effects, but the non-mutating nature is clear from 'report' and 'read'.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs. Main purpose in first paragraph, details in second, usage guidance and sibling relations in third, then arguments and return summary. Every sentence is relevant and no 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 zero parameters and existence of output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, how to use it with siblings, and what the return contains. It could mention potential error states or performance, but for a simple read tool it is sufficient.

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 has no parameters with 100% coverage; description adds 'Takes no arguments' which is trivial. No further parameter details needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports discovery-tip state and adoption. It uses specific verb 'report' and resource 'discovery-tips state' and 'adoption read'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with discovery_intro and next_discovery_tip and use before set_discovery_tips.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to answer 'are tips on?' and to sanity-check before set_discovery_tips, and mentions pairing with other discovery tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or give alternatives.

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