Request Discovery

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'Validates the source is currently visible in Berserk, then records a job for the discovery worker to drain.' This informs the agent about internal validation and queuing, which is beyond what annotations provide. Missing details about error handling or what happens on validation failure.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a one-line usage hint. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes key details without excess. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage trigger, and internal steps. It could be improved by mentioning the job destination or potential confirmation, but is still fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning to parameters; it mentions 'source' but does not map directly to parameters. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 action: 'Queue a newly-added service or metric for author-lane integration.' It explains the validation and job recording steps, and provides a specific use case ('when a user says I added / connected / started shipping SOURCE'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like discovery_status or discover_schema.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use when a user says I added / connected / started shipping SOURCE.' This provides clear context. However, it does not include when not to use or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list implicitly offers alternatives.

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