discover_eo_tools

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only discovery behavior, explains how query and category filters behave, and states that the return value is a JSON string listing tools, categories, descriptions, and the active profile. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but this appears to be a safe search tool, so the gap is minor.

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 well structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief contextual note about progressive discovery, a category list, and an Args/Returns section. It is longer than necessary due to the category examples, but each part earns its place by making the tool's contents immediately understandable.

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 that an output schema exists and there are only two optional parameters, the description is complete enough for safe invocation: it explains the purpose, both parameters, the valid categories, and the response shape. It could mention behavior when no arguments are supplied, but the optional/default schema makes that reasonably clear.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: 'category' is described as an optional category filter, 'query' is described as an optional keyword filter for tool names and descriptions, and the valid category values are enumerated. This gives the agent everything needed to use the parameters correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search and progressively discover eo-mcp tools across categories.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from the domain-specific sibling tools by positioning it as a discovery/metadata tool. The category list with tool examples further reinforces the tool's scope.

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 explains that this tool implements the client-side progressive discovery pattern (search, inspect, execute) recommended for MCP clients, which clearly signals when it should be used: as the first step before selecting and invoking domain tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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