get_discovery_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about querying the discovery_status table and returning records with success/fail/in progress states, which is consistent but adds limited value beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each sentence serves a purpose. It is slightly verbose but efficient, with no wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains return fields (count, statuses list with sys_id, state, source, etc.). All parameters are optional, and the tool's purpose is fully covered. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section details all four parameters, including schedule_name's STARTSWITH matching, state's valid enum values, limit range (1-1000), and offset for pagination. This provides meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get recent Discovery status records showing scan results', which is a specific verb+resource. It further explains that it queries the discovery_status table for scan results, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_discovery_errors or list_discovery_schedules.

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 parameter descriptions and context (e.g., schedule_name supports STARTSWITH match) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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