find_update_sets

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the tool behaves as a lookup/pre-flight check on update set state. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether partial name matching is exact or fuzzy behavior, or pagination/large result behavior. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and appends the practical rationale. There is zero waste. It's slightly verbose in the rationale clause but that clause adds genuine value in explaining the use context, so it earns its keep.

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 lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and both readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the matching semantics (partial name), the purpose (promotion pre-flight), and the resource scope (update sets). The 'limit' parameter implications could be clearer (what happens when scanning is exceeded), but this is a minor gap for a low-complexity 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('name' for artifact matching, 'limit' for max scan). The description adds the semantic framing that name supports 'partial' matching and that the tool scans captured updates, which somewhat complements the schema. But the description doesn't add material new meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource ('List the update sets that contain changes to an artifact by name') and adds purpose context ('so you know what is in-flight or already captured for promotion before you touch it'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_update_sets (generic listing) and list_changesets (code commits). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling for differentiation, only implicitly distinguishing via the artifact-by-name scope.

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 for when to use it ('before you touch it', when checking in-flight or captured promotion changes). It effectively conveys the timing and scenario of use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' exclusion that would push it to a 5.

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