federation_discover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does so excellently. It explicitly declares the tool is read-only, never parses entries into connectable specs, and never ratifies anything. It also discloses the default root and environment variable override, giving clear behavioral expectations.

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 slightly verbose with a quote, but every sentence provides valuable context, including behavior and purpose. It is well-structured, starting with a clear summary, and avoids redundancy.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety well. However, it does not describe the return value or format, and the missing `app_id` explanation reduces completeness, leaving the agent with an unclear picture of required inputs.

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 explain all parameters. It provides meaningful context for `root` (default path and env var), but `app_id` is required and completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for a mandatory input.

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 the tool's function: scanning `.mcp.json` files under `root` for entries not owned by the ratified registry. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource (`.mcp.json` files), and distinguishes its role from siblings like `federation_list_servers` by explicitly targeting unknown servers.

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 provides strong contextual guidance, stating this is 'the first question an orchestrator must answer before it can federate at all.' It implies the correct usage scenario, though it does not explicitly name or exclude alternative tools.

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