MELRA capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by naming the categories of information surfaced (capabilities, policy defaults, runtime limits), which hints at return content, but says nothing about behavior such as cost, side effects, or freshness.

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 no filler; every word carries information about what is discovered.

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?

With no output schema, the description must hint at what comes back, and it does by enumerating the three result categories. It is largely complete for a zero-parameter discovery call, though it could say whether this is a prerequisite for the other melra tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for.

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 states a specific verb (Discover) and a concrete set of resources (local execution capabilities, policy defaults, runtime limits). It clearly distinguishes this read-only introspection tool from actionable siblings like melra_plan and melra_execute, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the other melra tools. The agent can infer it is an initialization/discovery step, but nothing states that it should be called before planning or that it is safe to call at any time.

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