find_slices

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether the tool is read-only, what the returned candidates look like (scores? IDs? pagination?), or that filtering defaults such as min_visibility=0.4 and allow_arms_in_fov=false silently exclude slices. For an 8-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the core ranking behavior first and the enum gloss second, so no sentence is wasted. However, the second sentence covers only a fraction of the enum surface and the backtick-marked tokens read as fragments rather than structured guidance.

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 eight parameters, a nested-but-undescribed filters object with many behavioral toggles, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to let an agent call the tool correctly. An agent would have to guess at strategy semantics, filter defaults, and the shape of the ranked result.

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 description coverage is 0% at the top level: seed, view, level, limit, strategy, structures, and slice_index have no inline documentation. The description clarifies only two of six strategy enum values and says nothing about 'max_visibility', 'max_area', 'random', or 'index', nor how 'level' interacts with the strategy or with the 'auto' view.

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 and resource: 'Rank (case, view, slice) candidates where every structure is clearly visible', which tells an agent this is a ranked slice search rather than a listing or rendering call. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as find_findings or slice_contents, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no indication of when a caller should prefer this tool over find_findings, slice_contents, or render_image. The only usage hint is the gloss on two strategy values ('classical', 'level'), leaving four other strategies, the 'view' and 'limit' choices, and the required 'structures' argument unaddressed.

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