find_flyte_example_for

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates the tool performs a search (read-only) across READMEs and docstrings. It does not mention mutation or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is sufficient for a search tool, though response format or performance are not discussed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds search scope detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers what the tool does and where it searches. It is complete enough for a typical search tool, though it could mention ordering or relevance ranking. The sibling context helps define its role.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'use_case' as a natural-language query but does not mention 'limit' or its default value. Only partial parameter information is conveyed, leaving the 'limit' parameter completely undocumented.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'example themes' with the qualifier 'best matching a natural-language use case.' It further specifies the search scope (READMEs and file docstrings), distinguishing it from siblings like get_flyte_pattern or list_flyte_patterns.

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 implies usage for natural-language queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_flyte_patterns or get_flyte_pattern. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary criteria are provided.

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