find_state

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does so by noting case-insensitive matching and returning None when no match is found. These are non-obvious behaviors that help the agent understand the tool's semantics. It does not mention potential errors or the role of project_id, but for a simple lookup, the key behaviors are covered.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is a model of conciseness.

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 tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description addresses the primary lookup behavior and case-insensitivity. However, it omits the purpose or effect of 'project_id', which is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter tool. This prevents the description from being fully 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter by indicating case-insensitive matching, but it says nothing about 'project_id', which is an optional parameter with unknown semantics. Since half of the parameters are undocumented both in the schema and description, the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the tool finds a state by name, uses case-insensitive matching, and returns it or None. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_states (which lists all states) and create_state/update_state (which modify states). The verb 'find' and resource 'state' are 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 implies usage for retrieving a single state by name, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_states, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, which meets the 'implied usage' benchmark but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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