librarian_locate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that answers come from a fresh code index, that line numbers are current, and that a [changed] flag warns about recently edited files. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or permission requirements, but those are strongly implied by 'find'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance, and most sentences earn their place. It is slightly verbose in emphasizing exactness and currentness, but not wasteful.

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 covers purpose, usage timing, query examples, freshness behavior, and the optional caller parameter. An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, though scope and limits of the search are not fully specified.

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 explain the parameters, and it does. It defines `query` as a natural-language question with useful examples and explains `caller` as an optional label to leave empty.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find the exact current location of code/config/catalog items, returning file:line. It clearly distinguishes the tool from grep-scanning, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the many librarian_* sibling tools.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use this before grep-scanning the codebase, with example natural-language queries. It names grep as an alternative, but does not state when not to use this tool or how to choose among the librarian_* siblings.

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