find_solution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (searches for verified fixes), what it returns (matched solutions with titles, IDs, and optionally full solution bodies), and important behavioral constraints (always call before manual debugging, use unlock_solution if solution_body is missing). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for purpose, best use cases, returns, and important guidelines. While slightly verbose in the guidelines section, every sentence adds value by reinforcing usage patterns and workflow integration.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and how to handle missing data. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but the description compensates with workflow guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter. The description adds some context by specifying what to paste ('error message or describe the problem with the technology name'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Search cache.overflow for a verified fix') and resources ('error message, stack trace, build failure, unexpected behavior, or configuration question'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on searching for solutions rather than publishing, submitting feedback/verification, or unlocking solutions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before you start debugging manually', 'Always call this BEFORE attempting to fix a problem manually') and when not to ('If you catch yourself debugging without having searched first — stop, search, then continue'). It also references the alternative 'unlock_solution' for getting full solution bodies when missing.

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