discover_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the exact categories available, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. It does not detail edge cases, but for a simple read-only listing tool, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a colon-separated list of categories. Every word earns its place; there is no waste or 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?

For a simple discovery tool with high schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the action, the resource, and the valid categories. It does not describe return format, but that is easily inferred for a listing tool and is not critical.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, and the schema description already explains the 'category' parameter. The tool description adds meaning by listing the valid category names explicitly, effectively providing an inline enum set, which exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'available tools' and specifies the dimension 'by category'. It clearly distinguishes this introspection tool from the many action-oriented sibling tools (e.g., stop_project, export_project) by serving as a discovery/meta tool.

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 when to use the tool: to see what tools exist in a given category. It provides a full list of valid categories, giving context for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist.

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