sn_discover

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance impact, or side effects. For a tool that searches data, basic transparency on safety is missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key return fields. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not rich. It could mention pagination, ordering, or that results are limited to tables. Without output schema or annotations, the description carries the burden and is minimally 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 50% (keyword described, limit not). The description adds value by stating that keyword searches table names and labels, compensating partially for the missing description of limit. However, limit's purpose and default behavior are not explained.

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 tool finds tables by name or label keyword, and lists the return fields (table name, label, scope, parent class). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a table discovery tool, which is specific among the diverse set of sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sn_query or search_server_code. The description implies its use for table discovery but does not provide context for exclusion or comparison.

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