find_license_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the three result buckets (packages with files, installed without a license file, no installed copy to inspect), calls out NOTICE files that must be reproduced under Apache-2.0, and states the offline constraint.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the scan locations and result categories following in support. Formatting with line breaks reads well; wording is efficient with little filler, though the parenthetical about Apache-2.0 could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still sketches the three result categories and the NOTICE caveat. Combined with the annotation-declared safety profile, this is nearly complete; only the parameter semantics are missing.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description references 'the project' implicitly mapping to `path`, but never explains `path` semantics or what the `python` parameter selects (interpreter? venv target?). With two undocumented parameters and no compensating meaning, this is a clear gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show which dependencies ship a LICENSE / COPYING / NOTICE file in their installed copy,' and names the exact ecosystems scanned (venv dist-info incl. PEP 639 `licenses/`, node_modules, ~/.cargo/registry). It is clearly distinct from a sibling like generate_notices, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with license_inventory, which sounds adjacent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool to reach for when auditing on-disk license files offline. 'Offline only' is useful scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor a pointer to license_inventory or generate_notices as alternatives, so the agent must guess at routing.

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