lookup_target

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only check that does not probe, and on MISS it triggers background profiling while allowing the user's task to continue. This goes beyond basic disclosure.

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 with no filler, efficiently packing purpose, behavioral constraints, and conditional workflow in a clear, front-loaded manner.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and flow, but omits explicit mention of return values (e.g., what does a HIT look like?) and error handling. However, given the tool's nature and sibling context, it is mostly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'target' parameter beyond implying it is the target of interest. It does not specify format, constraints, or examples, so the description adds little value over the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('DiscoMCP skill... covers this target') and distinguishes itself from the probing sibling tools by explicitly stating 'without probing' and referencing the alternative workflow (inspect_target, execute_probe).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool to check coverage to avoid unnecessary probing. It also tells what to do on a MISS (dispatch background subagent) and maintains user task continuity, clearly differentiating from full probing tools.

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