find_needs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all' implies a read-only, non-destructive enumeration, but there is no disclosure of pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), ordering, or whether the listing is scoped to a run. With zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that efficiently enumerates what the tool returns. It is well-sized, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the required run_id and the limit parameter are undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no usage framing relative to the many sibling find_* tools. Incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions run_id (required) or limit (default 20), leaving both parameters' meaning and the pagination semantics entirely 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'List all discovered need clusters', and specifies the returned fields (raw dimensions, unique authors, cross-source counts). It is distinguishable from singular siblings like inspect_need and comparative siblings like compare_needs, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_signals or compare_needs. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for enumerating need clusters before inspecting or comparing them.

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