find_intended_behavior

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what output format is produced, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects (e.g., triggering reindexing of sources). 'Joins' hints at aggregation but the nature of the operation and its results are unclear.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the phrasing is informal and cryptic ('How is this meant to be used?'). While concise, the opening question is idiosyncratic and could confuse rather than clarify. The meaningful content (the joined sources list) is packed into a single clause.

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?

For a tool that aggregates multiple documentation sources, the description is minimal. There's no output schema to explain return values, no annotations for safety, and only partial parameter documentation. An agent cannot confidently predict what this tool returns or when to invoke it over its many siblings given the sparse description.

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 50% — the topic parameter has a description with examples ('AnimatedContainer' or 'keys'), but the limit parameter has no description. The tool description adds no details about what topic values are valid or how limit controls behavior. With partial coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 "Joins widget tests, samples, migrations/cookbook/guides, and source" conveys it aggregates multiple documentation sources, and the title find_intended_behavior hints its purpose is discovering intended usage. However, it's phrased as a question tagged alongside an unclear phrase ('How is this meant to be used?') rather than a clear declarative statement of the tool's function. The verb 'Joins' is ambiguous about what the operation actually produces or returns.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The description mentions what sources are joined but doesn't say when to prefer this over siblings like find_examples, find_tests, or search_docs. The intended behavior-finding use case is implied by the name rather than stated. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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