Discover Tools

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the return structure (_entity=tool_families, front_door block with execute_plan and get_changes), the fact that it's a navigation layer not the exhaustive catalog, and points to tools/list for full schemas. This adds substantial context about what the tool does and its limitations.

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 with useful information, but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool's purpose, describes return structure, gives usage timing, and clarifies canonical sources. It's front-loaded with 'Meta-tool' and structured with clear punctuation (colon, em-dashes, parentheses) for readability.

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 the tool's complexity as a meta-tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its relationship to tools/list and other tools. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need detailed explanation, and the description still provides the necessary navigational context.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including examples. The description only restates that results are 'optionally filtered by a query,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies this as a meta-tool that navigates the catalog by family, with specific examples of families and a distinct role from sibling tools. It uses a specific verb ('navigate') and resource ('tool catalog') and explicitly contrasts itself with the canonical tools/list, making its 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST when you are unsure which tool fits a task' and then call the chosen tool. It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'tools/list stays canonical' and 'if you are BINDING a capability map, bind it from tools/list, not from here.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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