discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses that it is 'cheap-first' and may navigate to a URL, but does not clarify whether it modifies state, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It mentions merging and ranking but lacks details on behavioral traits like cost or safety.

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 consists of two sentences: the first explains functionality concisely, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with key information, no redundant words, and earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role and output as a 'ranked graph with provenance plus route-level escalation hints.' It is complete enough for a discovery tool, though more detail on output structure could help.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions optional URL navigation. No new semantic value is provided.

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 'High-level cheap-first information discovery' and details specific actions: navigating to URL, running light JS, merging DOM routes, inferred form/query URLs, and network JSON routes into a ranked graph. This distinguishes it from siblings like route_discover or navigate by emphasizing a combined, cheap-first approach.

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 says 'Use this when the task is to find where information lives before extracting it,' providing clear context for use. It implies a precursor to extraction but does not list specific when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, though the sibling context suggests alternatives exist.

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