find_existing_responsibility_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only searching/checking intent through 'Find', 'check', and 'already has terms', but it does not explicitly state that no modification occurs, nor does it disclose output format, pagination, or matching semantics (e.g., exact vs partial matches).

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 three sentences with front-loaded purpose and usage guidance. The last sentence partially restates the first, but it adds the 'specific action-object pair' check, so the redundancy is minor and not wasteful.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core purpose and when to use it, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of existing terms vs a boolean), how the optional search behaves, and any limits. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, and each parameter is documented with clear guidance (e.g., 'Use get_actions to find action ID'). The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific action ('find existing responsibility combinations') and clarifies the resource ('Actions and Objects by language', 'specific action-object pair'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling find_existing_skill_terms by focusing on responsibilities. However, the phrasing 'Find existing Actions and Objects' is slightly imprecise because the tool actually checks action-object pair terms, not raw Actions and Objects.

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 says 'Use this BEFORE adding new terms to responsibilities,' giving a clear workflow trigger. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get/list, but it provides enough context for a responsible calling sequence.

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