find_across

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It conveys the high-level relation (expose/consume across repos) but does not state whether the search is literal or fuzzy, what data sources it scans, whether it is read-only, or what scope it covers.

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 two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the kind values listed afterward. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful 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 return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and two parameters, the description leaves out important context about query format, search scope, and behavior, making it only minimally complete.

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 usefully enumerates the accepted kind values and gives examples like sqs:orders, but it does not explain the query format or whether query must be an exact identifier, pattern, or path.

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 finds repos that expose or consume a given resource, and lists concrete resource types (route, table, topic, gRPC service, AWS resource, package, path). It is specific enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like query, search_org, or find_similar.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It implies usage by listing resource kinds, but does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_org, query, or find_similar.

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