discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses side effects, safety, and edge behavior: read-only probing by default, registry caching under ~/.rutherford/acp-registry.json, scanning PATH and curated dirs, no downloads or npx execution, write=true appending without overwriting existing sections, and refresh behavior.

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?

Though long, every sentence adds necessary detail for a non-trivial tool. The purpose is front-loaded, and the rest flows logically through discovery, probing, writing, refreshing, and use-case. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 four parameters, side effects, and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains the return value, config-writing behavior, file paths, cache/refresh semantics, installation scanning, and built-in exclusion. An agent can invoke it correctly with this text alone.

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 provides only names, types, and defaults (0% description coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It does so for all four: probe=true drives a read-only round trip, write=true appends config for the scope, scope maps to concrete config paths, and refresh re-fetches the registry.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find installed ACP agents via the community registry and propose [agents.<id>] config for them.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'registry-driven companion to setup/doctor,' so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to adopt an ACP agent (or bridge) Rutherford does not ship as a built-in.' It also contrasts it with setup/doctor and clarifies that it never downloads or runs npx, making the appropriate invocation context explicit.

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