discover-schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists project types and sections, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the purpose, the second gives direct usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 zero params and no output schema. The description covers both what it returns (list of project types and sections) and how to use the result (mapping selectors for get-collection), making it self-contained for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain about input semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 applies for parameter-less tools.

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 uses specific verbs 'Discover' and 'list' with a clear resource ('the firm's custom data structure'), naming exact outputs ('project types and collection sections'). It also differentiates from siblings by referencing the get-collection tool, establishing its unique role.

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 identifies when to use it: to map section selectors for get-collection. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the clear context is sufficient for a dedicated discovery tool with no obvious competing sibling.

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