find_property_usage

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

It discloses that matches are substring (LIKE) hits and are candidates to review, not definitive, which is valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also mentions that the property record itself is included, adding behavioral depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage advice and a caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage timing, and matching limitations. It could detail the return structure since there is no output schema, but the description's hints are sufficient for a search 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 baseline is 3. The description adds that matching is substring-based, clarifying the 'name' parameter behavior beyond the schema's simple 'System property name, e.g....'.

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 finds scripts that read a system property by name plus the property record itself. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource, distinguishing it from property getters and general script reference tools.

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 explicitly says to use it before changing or removing a property, providing a clear context. It does not name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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