discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (a list of framework names? config paths?), how multiple/zero frameworks are handled, or whether it inspects files on disk.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the result of omitting useful detail rather than sheer efficiency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what detection yields, and there are no annotations to cover safety or side effects. For a tool agents will call before running tests, essential context about the return value and error behavior is missing.

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 the single projectDir parameter (absolute path) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about the path, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (auto-detect) and resource (test frameworks configured in a project directory), which is far more informative than the vague name 'discover'. It is distinguishable from the run/parse/list siblings, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many test-related siblings (list_runs, run_tests, etc.). Use is only weakly implied by the notion of detecting frameworks before acting on them.

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