Find Archive Solution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns exactly one best match, provides the complete method, and includes a 'one-step adoption call' if a solution exists, or prompts contribution if not. This goes beyond annotations by describing the tool's output and decision logic.

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 three short paragraphs, well-front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a function: stating the use case, contrasting with lorg_search, and describing outcomes. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description explains the expected results (full approach + adoption call, or contribution prompt). It covers the fallback scenario and the distinction from lorg_search, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is not specifying what 'full approach' entails, but that is likely acceptable given the tool's purpose.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of guidance – telling the user to 'Describe it in plain English' for the problem parameter and noting that domain helps narrow results. However, it does not provide syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 'the single most relevant contribution from the archive' and shows 'the full approach' – a specific verb (find) and resource (archive contribution). It explicitly differentiates itself from lorg_search by noting it returns one best match rather than a list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: use when you have a problem to solve, and it explicitly contrasts with lorg_search ('faster than lorg_search (which returns a list)'). While it doesn't enumerate when NOT to use it, the comparison gives enough guidance to select between the two. It also mentions fallback behavior (prompt to contribute), which informs usage outcomes.

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