find_system

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 adds context by mentioning ranked results and match evidence, which gives insight into output characteristics. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe side effects, or clarify pagination behavior beyond what the schema already provides. This gap is notable but not severe for a discovery tool.

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 that front-loads the key purpose ("Ranked system discovery") and includes a useful status marker ("(RECOMMENDED)"). Every phrase adds value, and it avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to convey sufficient context. It provides a high-level summary of purpose and result characteristics (ranked, match evidence) but omits behavioral details such as explicit read-only guarantees or output structure. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but has clear gaps for full autonomy.

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%, so per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate. The description's list of search domains (paths, functions, etc.) partially overlaps with the schema's descriptions for system_name and categories, but does not add substantial new meaning. It does not explain parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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's function as "Ranked system discovery with match evidence," indicating a specific verb ('discovery') and resource ('systems'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the search scope across paths, functions, attributes, dependencies, services, and remotes, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 implies usage for finding systems, with the "(RECOMMENDED)" prefix suggesting it is the preferred choice. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_source or find_dependencies, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage guidance is thus implied but not explicit.

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