find_alternativesFind curated alternatives to a given AI tool by its directory slug. If the tool has shut down, returns live replacements. Good for "what should I use instead of X" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The directory slug of the tool to find alternatives for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific behavior about returning live replacements for shut-down tools, which provides some additional context but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like auth or rate limits.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the primary function, and the second provides a key behavioral note. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a special case. It omits details about the output format (e.g., returns tool names, slugs, or objects), but given the low complexity, this is not a critical gap.
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% with the slug parameter described as 'The directory slug of the tool to find alternatives for.' The tool description reinforces 'by its directory slug' but adds no new information beyond the schema. With full coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 finds curated alternatives to a given AI tool by its directory slug, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it returns live replacements for shut-down tools. The verb 'find' and resource 'alternatives' are unambiguous, and the example usage makes its purpose evident.
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 a clear use case ('what should I use instead of X' questions) and mentions special handling for shut-down tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking lifecycle status, comparing two tools, finding alternatives, getting full details, listing by category, and searching. No overlap.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_tool_status, search_tools). Minor singular/plural variation is acceptable.
With 6 tools covering search, browse, detail, comparison, and lifecycle checks, the count is well-scoped for an AI tool directory service.
The tool set covers the main user needs: discovery (search, list), details (get_tool), verification (check_tool_status), comparison (compare_tools), and alternatives (find_alternatives). No obvious gaps.