ck_mcp_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions querying an endpoint but omits details on side effects (likely read-only, but not stated), authentication needs, error handling, or behavior on unreachable servers.

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, clear sentence. It is concise, but could be improved by including a brief usage note without significant bloat.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks information about return format, error responses, or what happens upon successful discovery. This is adequate but not fully 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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds value by elaborating on transport auto-detection and the HTTP dependency (Erlang's :httpc). This provides practical context beyond the basic 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: auto-discover tools from an external MCP server by querying its tools/list endpoint. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools (which are specific server capabilities) by positioning itself as a meta-tool for discovery.

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 for discovering tools from external servers but does not explicitly state when to use (or not use) this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where it is inappropriate.

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