discover

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details caching, scanning paths, probing behavior, write behavior, and refresh. It explicitly states 'never downloading or running npx' and describes the probing mechanism.

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 somewhat long but well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose and then expands with necessary details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior and parameters. It mentions return values (discovered agents and config block). Lacks error handling or edge cases but is fairly complete for a registry-driven discovery tool.

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 0%, but the description explains all four parameters: refresh, probe, write, and scope. It adds context like default values and behavior (e.g., 'write=true appends that block to the config for scope'), going beyond the 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 clearly states it finds installed ACP agents and proposes config. It specifically mentions the registry-driven companion to setup/doctor, distinguishing itself from siblings.

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?

It explains when to use this tool: 'Use this to adopt an ACP agent (or bridge) Rutherford does not ship as a built-in.' It contrasts with setup/doctor but doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond those.

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