discover

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 the two modes (list summaries vs. fetch arguments) and implies a read-only nature, but it does not mention any edge cases, error behavior, or whether the operation parameter accepts identifiers, names, or other forms. This is moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action ('List operation summaries') before introducing the alternative. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema provided (not shown here). The description explains the two invocation patterns but does not detail the return format or clarify how to specify an operation (e.g., by ID or name). While the output schema may cover return structure, the ambiguity around the parameter and lack of sibling differentiation make it incomplete for an agent to reliably choose and use this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter's meaning. It does convey that the 'operation' parameter selects which operation to fetch arguments for, and that omitting it yields a list of summaries. However, it doesn't specify the format or allowed values of the parameter (e.g., integer ID, string name), so the agent must infer this from context or trial.

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 dual behavior: listing operation summaries or fetching one operation's arguments. It uses specific verbs ('List' and 'fetch') and specifies the resource ('operation summaries', 'operation's arguments'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (inspect, capture, execute). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with these siblings, so it's a step below fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (inspect, capture, execute). The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which an agent should select it. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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