re_discover

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It gives a hint about the sources checked (PATH / env / native/re_tools bundling), which is useful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. The word 'Discover' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical note clarifies the scope. It is a model of concise writing.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states what the tool does and the sources it checks. However, it does not mention what the return value looks like or how the 'ids' filter behaves in practice, leaving some ambiguity. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single optional parameter 'ids' with a clear description ('Subset of tool ids; omit for all'), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it neither helps nor hinders beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('RE tool paths'), and adds scope details (PATH / env / native/re_tools bundling) that differentiate it from sibling tools like re_install or re_launch. It is concise but effective, though it could be slightly more explicit about what 'paths' entails.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the name and context, but the description does not state scenarios where discovery is needed before invoking other tools.

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