Discover Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of each flag: include_legacy adds aliases, structured adds surface/mutability info, and enable=False toggles to browse mode. This goes beyond simple operation naming and gives the agent insight into mutability implications and output richness.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences efficiently enumerate canonical categories and parameter semantics. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, categories, and parameter behaviors well. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but the mention of 'structured=True adds surface/mutability info' hints at output shape, making this a solid, complete description.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains 'category' via the canonical 8 list, and interprets 'include_legacy,' 'structured,' and 'enable' with meaningful behavioral detail (e.g., 'enable=False to browse only'). Every parameter receives descriptive context that the schema lacks.

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: 'Find and enable tools by category.' It identifies a specific verb (find/enable), a resource (tools by category), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform scene operations, validation, or compilation. The canonical category list further sharpens 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when discovering or enabling tools by category—and explains key behavioral switches like 'enable=False to browse only.' It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose relative to siblings makes usage intuitive.

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