gateway_factory_projects_discover

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what happens during discovery, whether it returns a list, or any side effects. Since annotations already cover safety, the description's minimal contribution warrants a low score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, lacking structure or elaboration that would aid an agent. It is not poorly structured, but it does not fully earn its place by adding sufficient value.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. Yet it fails to explain the parameters or usage context, leaving the agent with no understanding of what 'discover' entails or how to filter results. The minimal description is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'query' parameters at all. The agent receives no explanation of their meaning, format, or how they affect the discovery. This is a critical gap given the schema provides no descriptions either.

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 ('Discover') and resource ('projects') with a qualifier ('that can be onboarded or executed by the autonomous development factory'), which is clear and distinguishes it from the sibling 'gateway_process_candidates_discover' by focusing on projects rather than process candidates. However, it could be more explicit about what 'projects' means in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_process_candidates_discover or other discovery tools. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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