ecamm_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the Bonjour/mDNS mechanism and that the call also (re)connects, which is a stateful side effect not visible in the annotations. It omits likely-relevant behavior such as discovery latency, whether it blocks, and whether the result is a Mac list or an auto-connection.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and resource, followed by the trigger condition. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a zero-parameter, non-destructive discovery tool with no output schema, this covers the essential what and when. A little more on what the agent gets back (list of instances vs. an established connection) would make it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. The description introduces no misleading arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (browse/discover) plus the resource (running Ecamm Live instances via Bonjour) and an additional action (re)connect. It implicitly separates itself from the ecamm_* listing/status siblings by naming network discovery as its job, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: after Ecamm was relaunched, or when you need to see which Macs are running it. It stops short of when-not-to-use or of pointing at ecamm_list/ecamm_status as the cheaper alternative when already connected.

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