Discover Tools

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the tool's navigation-layer behavior, its filtered output, and its non-exhaustive relationship to tools/list. It warns that this is not the exhaustive catalog and tells the agent where to get full schemas, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 dense but mostly earns its length: it front-loads the purpose, then adds return shape, family list, usage guidance, and canonical-source caveats. The final capability-map binding note is somewhat niche but still useful, so the structure is efficient without being bloated.

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 meta-tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: when to call it, what it returns, how filtering works, where the authoritative catalog lives, and what to do after discovery. Nothing critical is missing.

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 covers the single optional `query` parameter with examples and meaning, so the description adds little parameter-level information beyond restating that filtering is optional. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score applies.

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 verb and resource: 'navigate DC Hub's tool catalog by FAMILY instead of scanning the whole list.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns (_entity=tool_families) and differentiates itself from the canonical tools/list, making its meta-tool role distinct from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when you are unsure which tool fits a task.' It also provides an exclusionary rule by stating that tools/list remains canonical and that capability maps should be bound from tools/list, not from here, and references execute_plan/get_changes for refresh.

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