hello_aigent_discovery_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds key behavioral facts: 'Public; no token needed' and the hosting requirement ('host it at your site's /.well-known/hello-aigent.json'). This informs the agent of authentication expectations and post-processing steps. It doesn't describe error handling or return format, but these are partially inferred.

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 sentences, both purposeful. The first sentence names the operation and resource; the second provides deployment context and authentication status. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, a necessary post-condition (hosting the file), and authentication. It lacks details about the file contents or error scenarios, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'feed' as 'Feed id' (100% coverage). The description merely repeats 'for a feed' without adding new meaning, such as expected format or examples. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the generated discovery file (hello-aigent.json)') on a specific resource ('for a feed'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like event log or publishing. The verb 'get' and the file name make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'host it at your site's /.well-known/hello-aigent.json so agents can find and subscribe.' It implies when to use this tool (when setting up agent discovery). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool provides this functionality, so the absence is acceptable.

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