adtCoreDiscovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential side effects, or any constraints (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). This leaves the agent with no insight into how the tool behaves.

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 concise ('Performs ADT core discovery') but under-specified—it's too brief to be informative, lacking essential details. While it avoids unnecessary words, its brevity results in insufficient content, making it inefficient for guiding an agent. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place with meaningful information.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving system discovery) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ADT core discovery' entails, what results to expect, or any operational context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it neither adds nor detracts value in this dimension, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 'Performs ADT core discovery' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'adtCoreDiscovery' without specifying what 'ADT core discovery' actually does. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'retrieves system metadata' or 'lists available services') and does not differentiate from siblings like 'adtDiscovery', leaving the purpose vague.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'adtDiscovery'). This absence of usage instructions makes it unhelpful for an agent deciding between tools.

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