hydra_find_example

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool searches real, runnable Hydra jobs and returns manifests, but it does not explain similarity behavior, edge cases, or any constraints beyond the read-only annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by stating when to call and why. Not a single wasted word.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and a single required parameter, the tool is largely self-explanatory. The only real gap is the undocumented count parameter, but its optional nature and default soften the impact.

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 text needed to compensate for the undocumented user_request and count parameters. 'Closest to the request' hints at user_request, but count is never explained and neither parameter gets explicit format, meaning, or example semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('real Hydra ETL jobs'), a selection criterion ('closest to the request'), and a clear result ('return their manifests'). It also frames the tool as a pre-write aid, which distinguishes it from siblings like hydra_write_job or hydra_list_jobs without needing to open their schemas.

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 second sentence gives explicit timing guidance: call this BEFORE writing an unusual job, with a rationale ('an example that runs beats a reconstruction from memory'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops 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.