discover_specs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the scan is shallow ('Scans one level only'), that large folders are capped with `truncated: true`, and that the full `spec_file_count` is still returned. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error cases, but 'scan and report' strongly implies non-destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only high-value details: the returned `suggested_input`, exact user triggers, the one-level depth limitation, and truncation behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what is scanned, what is returned, how to use the output downstream with `serve_locally`, and edge behavior for large folders. Minor omissions such as error handling or path requirements do not significantly harm an agent's ability to call it correctly.

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 input schema has a single `dir` parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what `dir` should contain beyond the phrase 'Scan a directory'. There is no guidance on path format, whether the directory must exist, or whether absolute/relative paths are accepted, so the agent must infer semantics from the parameter name 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 states a specific verb ('Scan'), a resource ('a directory'), and a concrete outcome ('report what mockzilla can do with it'). It also clarifies the return value (`suggested_input`) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like `serve_locally` by positioning it as the discovery/precursor step.

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 explicitly lists triggering user phrasings ('I have a folder of specs/files, what's in it?' or 'mock this directory'), which tells an agent when to invoke it. It also notes the one-level-only scan behavior, implying that deeper recursion requires further calls, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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