Auto Discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the discovery mechanism (local port scanning) but says nothing about whether discovered devices are auto-registered, whether the scan can fail or be slow, or what happens when no devices respond.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and mechanism come first.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the scan returns (e.g., a list of discovered devices) and whether it mutates registration state. It leaves the agent unsure whether discovery is read-only reconnaissance or a state-changing registration step.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about 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 gives a specific verb (auto-discover), a resource (eNSP devices), and the mechanism (scanning local ports), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like discover_topology or register_device, which could also be read as device-discovery paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus register_device (manual registration) or discover_topology. The agent gets no trigger condition, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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