uoft_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it finds read operations locally and requests schemas, providing context that it is a discovery tool with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences that clearly state the purpose and the recommended usage pattern. It is front-loaded with the primary function and is free of redundant information. It earns a 4 for being efficient and well-structured, though it could potentially be expanded with minimal additional detail.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and relies on annotations for safety. The description does not explain how to use the parameters, what the return format looks like, or provide examples. For a discovery tool, an agent would need to know what information it returns (e.g., names, descriptions, schemas) and how to specify queries. The description lacks this essential context, making it incomplete for effective use. A score of 2 is appropriate.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention any of the parameters (query, limit, detail, service). The parameter names and enum values (e.g., detail: names/descriptions/schemas; service: timetable/degree_explorer/acorn) provide some self-explanatory meaning, but the description adds no value to understanding the parameters. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate, so a score of 2 is justified.

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 that the tool finds read operations locally and requests schemas before calling unfamiliar operations. This identifies it as a discovery tool for available read operations and schema retrieval, distinguishing it from sibling tools like uoft_read (which likely performs the actual read). However, the term 'locally' is slightly ambiguous, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implies the tool should be used to discover read operations and to request schemas before invoking unfamiliar operations, providing a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as specifying that uoft_read is for actual reads or that this tool should precede any unfamiliar operation. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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