xbox_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the write side effect (found consoles are saved to config) and the exact protocol/port. It omits important behavior: whether an existing saved config is overwritten, what happens if multiple consoles answer, and whether network broadcast permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: action, scope, protocol, and side effect all appear in order of importance. Nothing is repeated and nothing needs trimming.

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 two-optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and what it collects (IP, name, Live Device ID), which implies the return payload. It stops short of describing the zero-results/timeout path, the only real gap.

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 both parameters (auto_save_first, timeout_seconds) are already documented with defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — 'automatically saving' gestures at auto_save_first but doesn't clarify its interaction with existing config, which would be the value-add.

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 (scans), a specific resource (Xbox One / Xbox Series consoles on the local network), and even the transport (UDP 5050). Discovery is unambiguously distinct from the action-oriented siblings (xbox_power_on, xbox_launch, xbox_get_config), so an agent can pick it out without opening the 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?

Usage is implied: run this to find consoles before addressing them. But it never says when not to use it, nor routes the agent to xbox_get_config / xbox_set_config for consoles already known, nor explains how this relates to configuring a target before calling the other siblings.

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