find_supports_for

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation (lists candidates, no mention of modifications), and notes that the results are ordered by relevance but lacks support magnitudes. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or permissions, but the listing nature implies safety. A score of 4 reflects good transparency for a simple listing 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds critical usage guidance without any unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core function, differentiation, and a limitation. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. A score of 4 reflects adequate completeness.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning 'for a skill' (implying the skill parameter). The `limit` parameter is not described at all. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide meaningful parameter details, resulting in a score of 2.

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 it lists support gems for a skill, with curated recommendations and tag-compatible supports ordered by relevance. It also distinguishes from the sibling `optimize_supports`, making the purpose specific and 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to list candidates) and when to use the alternative `optimize_supports` (to actually pick the best set). It also explains why `optimize_supports` is needed (the corpus lacks support magnitudes), providing clear context for tool selection.

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