docs_discover

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals the discovery mechanism ('hidden until discovered') and lists the exact operations available. This gives important context about how the tool behaves and what the agent can expect. It does not detail return format or rate limits, but the annotations already cover safety, so this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a comprehensive list of operations. The list is long but informative, helping the agent understand the scope without needing to call the tool first. It is structured and each sentence contributes value, though the list could be considered slightly verbose.

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 simple discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, and what operations will be available. The absence of return-format details is mitigated by the operation list. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or response structure, but overall it provides sufficient 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 schema covers 100% of the parameter, with the query parameter described as 'Keyword to filter the returned operations.' The description does not add further details about the parameter's format or behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's listing of operations could hint at what to filter, but it is not explicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the available docs operations.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like drive_discover by focusing on 'docs operations' and enumerating the exact operation names. The purpose is 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Operational docs tools are hidden until discovered — call this first, then call the tool you need by name.' This provides clear usage context and directs the agent to use this tool before other docs tools. It also implies the alternative is calling the named operation directly after discovery.

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