find_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that tools are loaded on demand, made callable, and their names returned. This adequately discloses the tool's behavior for a search action, though it could further clarify what 'loading' entails for the agent's context.

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 efficiently written with a clear lead sentence, followed by context and formatted Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the tool's role as a searcher and loader, the description covers its purpose, parameters, and outcome (returns names). An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required. The description is adequate for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query as keywords for what to do, and limit as max tools to return with default 8. While brief, these descriptions add meaningful guidance beyond bare types.

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 searches the full tool catalogue and loads matching tools on demand, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that most tools are kept out of the active set for context efficiency, making this a unique discovery mechanism.

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 provides clear usage context: use when you need to call a tool not in the active set, with examples of keywords. It also explains the workflow (call this, then use returned tools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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