harpyja_locate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only implies deterministic behavior via 'deterministic ripgrep', but omits critical traits like side effects, authentication needs, or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but this underinformativeness harms usability. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 absence of annotations, low schema coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists) or compare with siblings.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (mode, query, repo_path, max_results, language_hint). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 files/lines relevant to a query, using the specific verb 'Find' and resource 'files/lines'. The mention 'Tier 0: deterministic ripgrep' adds technical context but does not differentiate from sibling tools like harpyja_index or harpyja_read.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation scenarios, such as when to prefer locate over index or read.

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