adtCoreDiscovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. 'Performs ADT core discovery' gives no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the vague action.

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 extremely concise - just three words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is in one phrase), it fails to provide meaningful information that would help an agent understand when and how to use this tool.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool with a similar name ('adtDiscovery'), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'core discovery' means, what differentiates it from regular discovery, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool in what appears to be an ABAP development environment with many specialized tools, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information (which isn't needed), it doesn't contradict the schema 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 'Performs ADT core discovery' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'adtCoreDiscovery'. It doesn't specify what 'ADT core discovery' actually does, what resource it operates on, or what outcome it produces. While it mentions the action 'performs', it lacks specificity about what is being discovered or how this differs from the sibling tool 'adtDiscovery'.

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. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tool 'adtDiscovery' exists, there's no explanation of how 'adtCoreDiscovery' differs from it or when one should be preferred over the other.

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