azeth_discover_agent_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively covers prerequisites ('target agent must be online and have a MessageRouter'), protocol details ('Sends a JSON capabilities request'), synchronous behavior ('waits for their response'), and failure modes ('If no response within the timeout').

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose (sentence 1), usage guidelines (sentence 2), behavioral details (sentences 3-4), parameter notes (sentence 5), return values (sentence 6), and example (sentence 7). Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains return values ('capabilities including services, pricing, and usage instructions'), timeout behavior, and prerequisites that would otherwise be unknown.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description duplicates the agentAddress format documentation from the schema and includes a helpful JSON example, but does not add significant semantic value beyond the well-documented 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 leads with a specific action ('Discover what services an agent offers') and mechanism ('sending them a capabilities request over XMTP'), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'azeth_discover_services' (which likely queries the registry) by emphasizing direct agent-to-agent communication.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when' pattern clearly defines the context (finding services/pricing) and positions the tool relative to alternatives ('before making a service request or payment'), implying when to use payment/agreement tools instead.

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