Find capability

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

The description is transparent about the tool's read-only nature, stating it returns matching capabilities without side effects. This aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No contradictions exist; the description adds context by specifying the return format, though the annotations already convey the safety profile.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is logical, moving from 'what it does' to 'how to use it'.

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 is complete for a search tool: it states the input type (natural-language query), the output (best-matching capabilities with name and summary), and its relationship to siblings. It lacks explicit parameter details, but those are covered under parameter semantics. Given the tool's low complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 two parameters (query and limit) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explicitly explain either parameter, relying on their self-explanatory names. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it only implies 'query' via the phrase 'natural-language query' and never mentions 'limit'. This leaves room for misunderstanding about the limit parameter's purpose or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Search this server's full tool catalog by natural-language query and return the best-matching capabilities.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings call_capability and describe_capability by focusing on discovery rather than invocation or schema retrieval.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it to discover which tool to call, then describe_capability for its schema and call_capability to run it.' It also offers an alternative for enumeration: 'To enumerate the whole caller-visible catalog grouped by domain instead of searching it, read the obsidian-tc://catalog resource.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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