art.memory.find_anchors

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or behavior, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that filters are optional; it does not disclose what the search returns (list? counts?), pagination behavior, or any constraints (e.g., requires a style context). This is a significant gap for a search tool with five filters.

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, concise sentence without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is minimal to the point of lacking substance, which prevents a 5—it is not verbose, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It is inadequate for a five-parameter search tool: it does not explain what a 'style anchor' is, what the result format looks like, whether results are paginated, or how this relates to other memory tools. A complete description would need to mention these aspects or rely on a richer schema.

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% and each parameter has a 'Filter by ...' description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema—it merely says 'optional filters,' which is already implied by having zero required parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance or clarify parameter meaning.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('style anchors'), so the purpose is evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like art.memory.find_references, art.memory.find_rejections, or art.asset.find, all of which likely have overlapping functionality. A 5 requires explicit differentiation, which is absent; a 4 would need some differentiating context, which is also missing.

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. The description simply says 'Search for style anchors' with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would prefer this over other search tools in the memory namespace. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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