list_media_grabbers_devices_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the short behavioral statement "Tell grabbers to discover devices" and the GET endpoint, which aligns with the safe, idempotent annotation profile. It does not add extra context such as whether discovery is asynchronous or what side effects it may trigger, but annotations cover the safety baseline.

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 compact and clearly structured: a one-sentence action statement, the endpoint, then an Args block. It avoids fluff and front-loads the core purpose before parameter details.

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?

With two optional parameters, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the invocation basics are covered. However, the description omits usage context, alternative tool routing, and any note about what discovery returns or how long it takes, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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 carry the parameter documentation burden. It does provide one-line meanings for both parameters: "Protocol to filter discovery" and "Targeted grabber identifier." These are helpful but minimal, and the second is close to a restatement of the parameter name.

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 and resource: "Tell grabbers to discover devices." The endpoint URL reinforces the operation. It distinguishes the discovery action from the sibling list_media_grabbers_devices by using the verb "discover," though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_media_grabbers_devices, create_media_grabbers_devices, or get_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id. The description implies usage through the endpoint and arg names, but it never states the intended condition or context for triggering discovery.

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