capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the categories of information returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, idempotency, or whether it needs to be re-invoked, leaving the discovery semantics implicit.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the four discovery categories with no filler. Nothing is padded or repeated, making it appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a no-param discovery tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only a hint about when in the workflow it should be invoked.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is vacuously complete, and no additional meaning is required from the description.

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' plus an explicit enumeration (input types, evidence states, runtime requirements, available interfaces) makes it clear this is a self-describing discovery endpoint. However, it never states whose capabilities are being discovered (whole system vs. a subsystem) and gives no differentiation from siblings like runtime_devices or runtime_plan.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. A discovery tool would benefit from saying it should be called first/once at startup or as a prerequisite to runtime_plan, audit_start, etc., but nothing routes the agent relative to the 16 siblings.

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