Discover New Providers (review-only)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses network access, that no key is required but GITHUB_TOKEN is optional, that it writes to data/review-queue.json, and that it never installs, enables, or runs anything. It omits rate-limit behavior and how many candidates are returned or whether the queue is appended to versus overwritten.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then mechanism, then side-effect boundary and return value. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by stating the return (top candidates and queue size) and the persistent artifact it creates. For a one-parameter discovery tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and understand the consequences.

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 single `query` parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description implies a search term but adds no syntax, scoping, or qualifier guidance beyond what the schema's example already provides.

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 and resource (discover/queue provider candidates) and names the two external sources searched (Hugging Face Hub, GitHub Search). It is clearly separable from siblings like list_providers (which presumably lists existing ones) and approve_suggestion (which acts on the queue this tool fills).

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?

"Use when the user asks to find new video/model tools" gives a clear triggering condition, and "Never installs, enables or runs anything" implicitly routes install/run intent to siblings such as install_dependencies. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., if the queue already has candidates).

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