discover_reddit_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it's a discovery tool that should be used first, and it mentions search outcomes (e.g., '3-5 subreddits' for 'quick' depth). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'available operations' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information: purpose and usage guidelines come first. It uses bullet points for parameter details, which aids readability. However, the 'LAYER 1' header and some phrasing (e.g., 'broader perspective') add minor verbosity without critical value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (discovery with parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by linking more explicitly to sibling tools or detailing the 'recommended workflow' mentioned in returns, leaving some contextual 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: 'topic' is for 'relevant communities,' 'include_communities' specifies 'whether to search for relevant subreddits,' and 'discovery_depth' explains thoroughness levels with concrete outcomes (e.g., '3-5 subreddits'). This goes beyond the bare schema, providing useful context, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like parameter interactions.

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's purpose: 'Discover available Reddit resources and operations' and 'to understand what's available before proceeding.' It specifies the verb 'discover' and the resource 'Reddit resources and operations,' making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinctly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_reddit_operation' or 'get_operation_requirements' beyond the 'discover' aspect, which is why it's not a 5.

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 usage guidance: 'ALWAYS USE THIS FIRST to understand what's available before proceeding.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as an initial step) and implies when not to use it (after discovery is done). It sets a clear context for usage relative to the workflow, though it doesn't name specific alternatives among siblings.

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