discover_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: the return shape ({ name, url }) and the empty-result fallback path (no phone answered, don't retry). It omits things like broadcast duration/timeout or network prerequisites, which would be nice for a local-network probe, but the core behavior is conveyed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return shape, then the fallback instruction. No filler; every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately documents the return shape itself and covers the primary failure mode with an actionable fallback. For a zero-parameter discovery tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and handle the result.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 (broadcast/discover) and resource (ServerKit phones running the MCP server) on the local network. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from siblings like connect/disconnect/start_session without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit failure-mode guidance: if the result is empty, ask the user for the ip:port shown in their ServerKit app rather than retrying. It does not explicitly say 'use this before connect', but the context of being the discovery entry point is clear from purpose plus siblings.

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