find_source_for_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ranked candidates with confidence scores and can work with two input types. It does not cover authorization, rate limits, or error behavior, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then input modes. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Ideal 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?

For a tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, output, and parameter usage. Minor gaps: no mention of behavior when no selection or invalid thread_id, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: correlationId defaults to latest selection, thread_id switches to stored context. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand the fallback behavior.

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: searching for source files that define or render a selected UI element. It specifies the output (ranked candidates with file paths, line ranges, confidence scores, match reasons) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning two modes (live selection or stored context).

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 context on when to use the tool (for finding source definitions) and explains the two input modes. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the sibling list implies its specific role.

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