find_property_usage

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations already present, the description adds value by disclosing the fuzzy nature of results: 'Matches are substring (LIKE) hits — candidates to review, not definitive.' This honestly frames the output as needing review, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, and caveat about result type. Front-loaded with the core function first.

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 read-only search tool with good annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the fuzzy matching nature, the review workflow, and the use case. Could optionally mention the sources searched (e.g., which script tables), but this is a minor gap for a candidate-screening tool.

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% with both parameters well-described in the schema (name with an example, limit with default). The description doesn't add much beyond schema for parameters, but the 'name' example is in the schema. Description adds slight value by reiterating the substring matching semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'find scripts that read a system property by name, plus the property record itself.' It specifies what is searched (scripts, system properties), the match mechanism (substring LIKE), and the result scope (candidates plus the property record). Distinguishes from siblings like get_system_property (returns one property) and search_system_properties (returns property matches only).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it before changing or removing a property.' This is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when you only need the property itself or the property value list, but the timing guidance (before mutation) is well-defined.

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