discover_related_properties

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 discloses the nature of the operation (discovery/analysis) and its return value, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not detail potential external dependencies, rate limits, or that no side effects occur, which for a discovery tool might be less critical but still leaves some ambiguity.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence summary, followed by clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler.

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's purpose and interface are simple (one parameter, clear output). The description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what input is expected, and what the output covers. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return documentation. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly situate the tool in a workflow, but that is not essential for this simple tool.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description. The tool description compensates effectively by explaining that the parameter accepts either a property name or a category, and gives concrete examples ('SEAT_MEMORY_SELECT', 'SEAT_MEMORY', 'HVAC_BASIC'). This meaningfully extends the schema beyond the bare type definition.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Discover') and a well-defined resource ('related properties, dependencies, and implementation order for vHAL properties'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_vhal_implementation_code and validate_vhal_property_request by focusing on exploration and analysis rather than generation or validation.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to understand relationships and ordering for vHAL properties. It provides concrete examples of acceptable inputs (property names or categories). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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