prufa_get_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or limits on data returned. For a simple get, it lacks details about what happens if discovery_id is invalid.

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 a single sentence with a list of returned fields and a cross-reference to another tool. It is efficient but could be improved by separating the field list or using bullet points for clarity.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a follow-up action. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter details and behavioral context, such as what constitutes a valid discovery_id.

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 schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the discovery_id parameter beyond its implied role. No format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving the agent to infer meaning from context.

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 it retrieves a discovery run's status and the surfaced flows, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like prufa_run_discovery (which initiates runs) and prufa_confirm_flow (which confirms drafts).

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 implies use after a discovery run and mentions the follow-up action (prufa_confirm_flow). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like prufa_get_run for run status.

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