find_api

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the result shape (top-N matches with slug/title/namespace/etc.) and the filter semantics for kind and namespace. It doesn't state read-only guarantees or error behavior, but the search verb and return description make the operation's behavior reasonably clear.

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?

Five short sentences/lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage and filter details. Every sentence provides information; no filler.

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 search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the return payload, filter parameters, and a clear use case. It omits edge cases like matching strategy and pagination, but the provided information is sufficient for basic invocation and selection.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explicitly explains `kind` and `namespace` with value examples and filter behavior, and 'top-N matches' maps to `limit`. `query` is left to inference from the tool name and the required field, and `limit` is not directly described.

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 opens with a specific action ('Search') and a precise resource ('local Fusion API help corpus'), then lists the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling find_* tools by pointing to the API help corpus rather than general tool/pattern/gotcha lookup.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it BEFORE writing a script that touches an unfamiliar method or class. No alternative tools or when-not cases are mentioned, so it provides a clear context without exclusions.

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