find_concept_by_resource

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It discloses the matching logic (resource field match) and that results may be plural ('concept(s)'), but it doesn't describe exact-match rules, case sensitivity, handling of multiple/none matches, or output format. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and every clause adds value. The example is in the schema, not duplicated here.

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?

The tool is simple (1 required param) and the description explains its purpose and result type. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could more explicitly describe the return value (e.g., list of concept IDs vs full objects) and no-match behavior, so it's not a 5.

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 covers the single parameter `file_path` with a clear description and example (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'find' and identifies the resource ('OKF concept(s)') and the matching criterion ('resource' field matches a source file path). The 'reverse lookup' phrasing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_concepts and read_concept 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?

It clearly states the scenario: you have a source file path and want the concept describing it. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the reverse-lookup framing makes the use case unambiguous.

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