neuron_discover_apis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the grouping behavior, URL normalization, and the full set of computed metrics (call counts, statuses, content types, auth presence, avg duration, sample response shapes). It does not discuss side effects or limitations, but the analysis-focused tone strongly implies a non-destructive read operation.

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?

Two sentences deliver a clear opening statement and then enumerate the output contents without wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by high-value detail.

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 parameterless analysis tool, the description covers the input source, the transformation, and the output fields. It could be more complete by noting whether live or stored traffic is used or whether there are any prerequisites, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The schema provides no enum or nested-object constraints, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.

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 a specific action (analyze captured network traffic) and a concrete deliverable (structured API map with normalized URLs and metrics). It is distinct from many siblings, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from similar traffic-analysis tools like neuron_search_traffic or neuron_export_har.

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 implies the tool is used after network traffic has been captured, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an active recording or a prior capture. Context is implied rather than stated.

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