acta_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool surfaces records but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or destructive potential. As a read-like tool, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the modes and limit. However, it could mention that results are returned or include pagination hints to be fully self-contained.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not add significant meaning beyond the enum options and limit field. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the tool name and description provide high-level context but no deeper parameter semantics.

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 uses specific verbs ('find', 'surfaces') and lists clear categories of actionable work, making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like acta_query by focusing on 'where am I needed?' rather than general querying.

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 context for when to use the tool ('where am I needed?'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the sibling list. It implies usage for task prioritization, which is clear enough for most agents.

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