find_model

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical behavioral details: fuzzy matching behavior, return structure (ranked candidates with similarity score and .include directive), port and parameter inclusion, and a performance warning for include_builtin. No contradictions.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from purpose to behavior to parameter details. No 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description still covers return values adequately (candidates, similarity score, .include directive, ports, params, optional full content). All 7 parameters are fully documented in schema, and the description provides necessary behavioral context for effective use.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how fuzzy matching works, that exact=true bypasses fuzzy scoring, that limit/cutoff are ignored when exact=true, and that full=true merges the old model_info tool. This reduces cognitive load for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('model/subcircuit candidates across loaded and optionally built-in libraries'). It distinguishes between fuzzy and exact modes, making the tool's primary function unambiguous.

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 states when to use fuzzy matching (default) vs exact matching (pass exact=true), and explains parameters like limit and cutoff are ignored when exact=true. It does not directly contrast with sibling tools, but the usage context is clearly implied within the domain of component search.

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