openemis_discover

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search scope (name, summary, description) but omits details like whether matches are partial/fuzzy, result limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a search tool, basic behavioral context is missing.

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 composed of two succinct sentences. The first presents the primary function, and the second details the search scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or superfluous content.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools for specific retrievals, the description adequately defines the tool's role as a cross-resource search. However, it could improve by mentioning the return format (e.g., list of matches) or any limitations.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the 'topic' parameter is matched against names, summaries, and descriptions of domains, families, and playbooks. This goes beyond the schema's example list to clarify the search scope.

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 verb 'discover' and specifies the resources (endpoints, playbooks, domains, families) and search fields (name, summary, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openemis_list_domains and openemis_get, which are likely for listing or retrieving specific items.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks statements like 'Use this to search across multiple resource types; use openemis_get to retrieve a specific playbook by ID.' No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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