pixera_find_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'find' and the returned identifiers imply a safe read-only lookup, which is real signal. However, it omits failure behavior (what happens if the path or name does not match), case/path-format expectations, and any permission requirements — gaps that matter for a 0-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action, the lookup keys, and the return fields are all packed in without redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the listed return fields are largely redundant, and the description otherwise covers what the tool does. It is thin on routing versus pixera_list_resources and on failure behavior, which are the remaining things an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does partially by clarifying that folder_name_path is a folder-name path (not a filesystem path) and resource_name is the resource's name. It still gives no format, separator, or matching-rule detail for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find one resource') plus the lookup keys ('by folder name path and name'), which distinguishes it from the sibling pixera_list_resources that returns many. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'find one resource by folder name path and name' implies the correct usage context (a single lookup when the path and name are already known), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to pixera_list_resources for enumeration cases.

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