Library Overview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds no behavioral context about pagination, namespace navigation, snapshot handling, or server caps; an agent must read the schema to learn these traits.

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 one compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is highly scannable, although it conveys more of a tagline than a detailed specification.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, this tool has six parameters including a nested discovery structure, and the description gives no guidance on when to set discovery, how namespaces are navigated, or how snapshots affect results. An agent would need to infer most operational behavior from the schema.

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 100%, with each parameter including constraints and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('discover unfamiliar capabilities') and implies differentiation from symbol-oriented siblings like inspect_symbol. However, it does not state the concrete outputs (feature pages, docs, examples) or mention the discovery parameter, leaving the purpose somewhat high-level.

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 phrase 'without knowing symbol names' implies use for exploration when symbol names are unknown, which distinguishes it from inspect_symbol. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named.

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