find_tool_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data (tool names, descriptions, GitHub URLs, issue context) and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. The description is adequate but could be richer.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second adds the filtering option. No extraneous information, and key details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it finds, what it returns, and optional filtering. It does not mention sorting or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, it is largely sufficient. Minor omissions prevent a perfect score.

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% (both query and limit parameters are described). The description adds marginal value by explaining the optional keyword filter in broader terms ('related to a specific technology or capability'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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's action ('Find'), the specific resource ('community tools, GitHub projects, and open-source resources mentioned in Entra.news'), and what it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_issue, list_issues, search_entra_news) by focusing solely on tool mentions.

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 when to use the tool (to find tool mentions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools exist for general issue search, but no comparison is made. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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