action_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior beyond the schema: the registry source is the Inkscape source, the total action count is 348, and window-scoped actions cannot run headlessly. It could mention pagination or limit defaults, but the disclosed scope caveat is genuinely valuable.

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 wasted words. The primary action and resource appear first, followed by the key differentiator (headless compatibility) and supporting statistics. Every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 simple optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the searchable fields, and the crucial operational constraint about window-scoped actions. It doesn't explicitly describe the output format or pagination behavior, but the core calling context is well covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining what 'scope' means (app = headless, win = GUI only) and implicitly that query searches across name, scope, source file, and parameter type. This goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions, earning a 4.

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 ('Search'), a precise resource ('action registry extracted from the Inkscape source'), and the fields returned (name, scope, source file, parameter type). This clearly distinguishes it from action_run and other sibling tools: it is the lookup/discovery tool, not an execution tool.

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 gives clear practical context: it searches a known registry of 348 actions and warns that 130 window-scoped actions can never work headlessly. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this before action_run' or list exclusions, but the context strongly implies the appropriate usage without needing deep inference.

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