discover_capability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish a clean safety profile. The description's listing of four discovery targets adds value beyond annotations by clarifying what the read-only operation surfaces. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the discovery targets. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Output schema exists, which explains return values, reducing the description's burden. However, given a large sibling set (~26 tools), the description is thin on clarifying what distinguishes this from get_feature_matrix or get_conformance_report. For a zero-parameter discovery tool the basics are covered, but scope/naming conventions (e.g., what 'default fixture' means) remain unclear.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no semantic surface to describe, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. No compensation needed.

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 verb 'discover' with resources 'executors, tools, safety boundaries, and default fixture' gives a reasonably specific sense of purpose. However, it doesn't strongly distinguish from siblings like get_feature_matrix or get_conformance_report, and the phrase 'default fixture' is ambiguous without context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its ~25 siblings. It only lists what it discovers but not when discovery is appropriate or what prerequisite state is needed. The agent cannot infer when this is the right choice among many similar get/discover tools.

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