discover_props

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool discovers unique values and lists searchable properties, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, error scenarios, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: one sentence, one example, and a list of searchable properties. Every element is informative, and there is no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides immediate practical details.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, provides an example, and lists acceptable property names. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., an array of unique values) or behavior on missing nodes, though this is partially mitigated by the example.

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 already describes both parameters (node and props) with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly listing valid property names (e.g., fillColor, fontSize), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Property name' and helps the agent select correct values.

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 unique property values in a subtree.' It includes an example and lists searchable properties, making the action and resource unmistakable. The tool is distinct from siblings like 'list_component_props' which lists props rather than discovering values.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any contextual guidance. While the example suggests a typical use case, there is no explanation of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow.

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