discover_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the effect of flags and implies enabling behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., persistence, permissions, exact return payload). This is a moderate gap for a tool that can enable/disable tools.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter clarifications. Every sentence delivers actionable information with no 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?

Covers all parameters and the category system, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return format and the side effects of enabling tools implicit. For an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool, a bit more detail on expected outputs or consequences would make it fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully: category is mapped to the canonical list, enable is explained with a browse-only mode, and include_legacy/structured are explicitly described. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema types.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find and enable tools by category.' It lists the canonical 8 categories, which clearly differentiates this tool from sibling introspection tools like resolve_tool_schema or alias_status. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance for each flag: include_legacy adds aliases, structured adds metadata, and enable=False browses without enabling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is strong.

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