Instrument Scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Discover' and explains the omitted-backend default; it does not disclose side effects, connection requirements, runtime cost, or failure modes. This is sparse transparency for a tool that may scan multiple backends.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the key default behavior is front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful meaning.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this is close to minimally adequate: the agent knows the basic purpose and the default invocation. Still, it lacks backend value guidance and explicit context for choosing this tool over its many sibling tools.

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%, so the prose must clarify the backend parameter. It explains the omission behavior, but it does not state what valid backend values look like, what formats are accepted, or what happens when a specific backend is supplied.

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 opens with 'Discover analyzers,' a specific verb and resource, so an agent understands the core action without needing to infer it from the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as instrument_list or protocol_list, but the focus on analyzers and available backends is reasonably distinct.

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 gives a useful conditional cue: omit the backend parameter to scan every implemented backend that is available. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over its many siblings, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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