ck_mcp_discover

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that it queries the /tools/list endpoint, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. However, it omits potential failure scenarios (e.g., invalid server URL, network issues) that could affect invocation decisions.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (specifying return values), the description does not need to explain them. It covers the tool's action, mechanism, and benefit, which, combined with the schema and annotations, provides a complete picture for the agent.

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%, so the schema already provides full parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, such as the purpose of each parameter or usage nuances.

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: auto-discover tools from an external MCP server by querying its tools/list endpoint. The name 'ck_mcp_discover' is specific, and no sibling tool performs a similar function, so it effectively distinguishes itself.

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 usage context (progressive discovery, no manual configuration), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as manual configuration or other discovery methods. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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