find_update_sets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description consistently says "List" without implying side effects. It adds the key behavioral detail of filtering by artifact name, but it does not disclose the limit parameter's effect on result completeness or the return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate added context, not extensive behavioral disclosure.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides a clear purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundant detail.

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 simple listing tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description gives enough context to understand the tool's purpose and appropriate use case. It could mention the limit's effect on result completeness, but the schema already documents the parameter and the openWorldHint annotation covers non-exhaustive results, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 describes both parameters fully (name as artifact name or partial, limit as max records to scan with a default). The description's phrase "by name" aligns with the name parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 states a specific verb ("List") and resource ("update sets that contain changes to an artifact"), making its function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_update_sets by focusing on artifact-specific filtering, and adds a practical rationale (knowing what is in-flight or captured for promotion).

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 phrase "before you touch it" clearly indicates when to use this tool: before modifying an artifact, to check for existing captured changes. It implies this is the right choice over generic listing alternatives like list_update_sets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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