discover_operations

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (RAG over the OpenAPI schema), states what is returned (operation entries with specific fields), and explicitly notes that no execution happens. While it doesn't mention potential permissions or errors, it gives sufficient transparency for a read-only discovery operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output details, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids unnecessary fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It explains the tool's role in the overall workflow, what it returns, and the next step. The only gap is the undocumented 'k' parameter, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 description must compensate. The description clarifies 'query' as a natural-language query, but makes no mention of the 'k' parameter. Given 'k' has a default of 5 and is likely the number of results, the description should explain this but does not, leaving a significant semantic gap for the parameter.

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 action—'Discover which API operations match a natural-language query'—and clearly identifies the resource (API operations). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'execute_operation' by explicitly stating 'No execution happens here' and framing this as a discovery step for finding tool IDs.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool: 'Use this to find tool IDs, then call execute_operation with the chosen operation_name and params.' It also clarifies the boundary by stating no execution occurs, which helps the agent avoid using it for execution purposes.

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