identity__discover_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ACTIVE agents, uses AND semantics for capabilities, and orders results deterministically. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no agents match. This is adequate for a read-only query tool but lacks completeness.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The context prefix '[identity — verifiable agent identity + capability discovery]' is helpful for namespace orientation. Every piece of information serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., agent IDs or full descriptors). It also omits the default limit value and edge cases (e.g., empty results). However, for the core functionality of discovery by capabilities, it provides sufficient context. Completeness is moderate.

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 description adds meaning for the 'capabilities' parameter by explaining it requires ALL requested capabilities to match (AND semantics). However, the 'limit' parameter (default 25) is not mentioned at all, and the schema has 0% coverage. The description compensates partially but not fully.

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 verb 'Find', specifies the resource 'ACTIVE agents', defines the filtering logic 'matching ALL requested capabilities (AND semantics)', and mentions deterministic ordering by match count then reputation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like identity__list_registrations.

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 implies usage: when you need to find agents by capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like identity__list_registrations or identity__resolve_agent. Despite this, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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