discover_and_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions SSH discovery and database storage but doesn't describe what 'discover' entails (what information is gathered), whether this is a read-only or write operation, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the device already exists in the database. Significant behavioral aspects are left unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, with zero wasted words.

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 tool that performs SSH discovery and database storage with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'discover' means operationally, what data is stored, whether this is idempotent, what errors might occur, or what the return value looks like. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial operation (5 parameters, 2 required) that needs more complete documentation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (like the 'mcp_admin' usage guidance for username/password). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('discover via SSH') and outcome ('store it in the network site map database'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ssh_discover' or 'bulk_discover_and_map', which appear to have related functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssh_discover' or 'bulk_discover_and_map'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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