discover_tools

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 mentions the tool 'enables' workflows, implying a configuration action, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only analysis or a write operation that changes system state, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like. For a tool with potential system impact, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main function, the second clarifies scope and priorities. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the complexity (workflow discovery/enablement), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its scope, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more completeness is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'natural language task description' which aligns with the 'task_description' parameter, but this is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Analyzes a natural language task description and enables the most relevant development workflow.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes' and 'enables') and resource ('development workflow'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on workflow discovery rather than direct execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'discover_projs'.

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 this tool: for analyzing natural language task descriptions to enable workflows. It mentions prioritization ('Prioritizes project/workspace workflows... and also supports task-based workflows... and Swift packages'), giving some guidance on its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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