strata_find_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does communicate that this is a search/read operation and mentions output components ('matches, count'), but it does not disclose matching semantics, case sensitivity, pagination, or potential limitations. The additional behavioral detail is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and scope, then compactly lists the key inputs and outputs. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 only two parameters, an existing output schema, and a one-line description, the tool is minimally callable. However, the lack of sibling differentiation and the weak parameter semantics leave gaps that matter for correct tool selection, especially given the large sibling list.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'query' and 'kind' by name but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already shows. 'matches, count' appear to be output fields rather than parameter documentation, so the semantics of how query matching works or how kind interacts with the search remain unexplained.

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 action ('search for fields'), the resource ('across all views'), and hints at the result shape ('matches, count'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named sibling tool strata_query_field.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives despite many sibling tools. The phrase 'across all views' gives some scope context, but an agent cannot determine how this differs from strata_query_field or when to prefer one over the other.

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