discover_workload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the dependency on ensure_environment, the iterative process (reuses same plan, overrides thread count/duration), the return value ('DiscoveryOutcome plus provisioning and a recorded run_id'), and parameter constraints like run_id regex and overwrite behavior. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences pack a wealth of information without waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers workflow and process, and the third covers return values and constraints. Excellent structure and front-loading.

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 description covers the essential workflow (dependency, step mechanics, return type) and key constraints (run_id format, overwrite). It omits explanation of the discovery and guardrails parameters, but guardrails schema provides its own descriptions. Given the output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for run_id (validation regex, collision/overwrite) and implicitly for plan_path (via 'same plan'), but does not explain the discovery object or guardrails. Guardrails has internal descriptions, but for the top-level parameters, coverage is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Find a capacity knee by stepping concurrency via -Jperfsage.threads.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like run_test or analyze_results by its discovery-focused purpose. The verb and resource are explicit and non-tautological.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (find a capacity knee) and notes a prerequisite ('Calls ensure_environment first'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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