find_gotcha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates that the tool searches a documentation file and returns known causes and fixes, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose details such as search semantics, result limits, missing-match behavior, or whether results are snippets or full entries.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, then immediately gives the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple search-type tool with a single required parameter and no output schema. It covers the primary scenario and approach. However, it could be more complete by explaining the role of `limit` and what the returned results look like.

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 for the input schema. It indirectly explains the `query` parameter through 'search by symptom or keyword,' but it does not mention the `limit` parameter at all or explain how many results may be returned. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('gotchas.md'), and it explains what the search is about ('known failure modes'). It is distinct from sibling search-like tools such as find_api and find_pattern because it targets a specific documentation file.

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 states when to use the tool: when something behaves unexpectedly, check here for the documented cause and fix before debugging from scratch. This gives clear context and implicitly positions it as an early diagnostic step.

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