match_heuristics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm and sorting, but lacks details on side effects (none expected), authorization, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. The version string adds no behavioral context.

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 a single informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the matching algorithm and sorting order. Every word is necessary, no fluff.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the matching logic, sorting, and the input parameter. Missing details on the return structure (e.g., fields returned per heuristic) and the effect of limit/minScore on output, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptions for all parameters (input, limit, minScore). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how the algorithm uses minScore or the default for limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 tool finds heuristics whose condition matches input, specifying the matching method (Jaccard token-overlap × confidence) and sorting order (descending by score, then priority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_heuristics or reinforce_heuristic.

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 is for matching input to heuristic conditions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_heuristics or detect_heuristic_conflicts. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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