discover_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scan mechanism and exact socket paths, which is real behavioral context, and 'Discover' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state the return format, whether stale sockets cause errors, or any permission requirements for scanning /var/run.

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?

Two compact sentences with the discovery scope front-loaded and the technical mechanism immediately after. No filler 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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient: it says what it finds and how. The only gap is that the shape of the returned instance list is not described, which would help an agent know what it can do with the results.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-related omissions exist.

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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('all running AimDB instances') and even names the mechanism (socket scanning). It is clearly distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like list_records or get_record, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_instance_info.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_instance_info. The usage context (discover before interacting with an instance) is only implied by the nature of the tool.

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