discover_tools

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies output content via 'Check callable+requiredArgs' but does not explicitly state this is a safe read-only meta-operation or describe the full return structure (list of tools with metadata).

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 tightly constructed sentences: purpose, prerequisite check, and parameter guidance. Front-loaded with intent, zero redundant text, every clause 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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description partially compensates by hinting at output via 'callable+requiredArgs'. However, for a discovery tool with rich siblings, it should explicitly state it returns available tool metadata/capabilities.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable usage semantics for 'include_examples' ('only when needed'), indicating performance/cost considerations beyond the schema's technical description.

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?

States specific verb+resource ('Find tools') and scope ('by category/capability'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling execution tools (e.g., 'Use this to discover available tools before invoking specific analysis tools').

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Check callable+requiredArgs before invoking' establishes a prerequisite workflow, and 'Use include_examples only when needed' explicitly constrains parameter usage. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' relative to siblings.

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