workflow_find_techniques

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses which fields are searched (names, synonyms, descriptions, details, example tools) and the ranking rule (matched_all_words first, then most words). It omits auth/rate-limit/error behavior, which is a minor gap for a read-style lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then search scope and ranking, then return contents. Every sentence is informative, though the final sentence is somewhat long and could be trimmed.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the search scope and ranking semantics an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing; only error/auth behavior is unstated, which is acceptable here.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the quoted-phrase and per-word matching rules. The description adds the matched_all_words ranking concept but no extra query syntax or limit behavior beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (Find) and resource (SOLVE-IT technique IDs, DFT-...) and even names the ranking behavior ('best matches first'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like workflow_inspect, workflow_validate, or workflow_create, which operate on workflows rather than techniques.

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 the tool's role as the technique lookup step ('usually enough to choose techniques and order them'), but never states when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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