bw_find

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' plus the read-oriented operation list implies a non-mutating discovery tool, and the two-step pattern (inspect the operation enum, then call bw_describe for full parameter definitions) is real behavioral value beyond structured fields. But it never states read-only behavior explicitly, nor anything about result limits, pagination, or what the different operations return — notable gaps for a 13-operation tool with no annotation coverage and no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the capability summary and immediately followed by the disambiguation mechanism. Every clause earns its place by corresponding to an operation domain. Slightly hedged wording ('… g. [afo_workbooks]' fragments leak in from the schema side) aside, the description text itself is tight.

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 22-parameter, 13-operation multiplexed tool the description sensibly acts as a table of contents and delegates per-operation detail to the enum and to bw_describe, which is a coherent and complete strategy given full schema coverage. What is missing is any statement of expected return shape or scope limits per operation, which matters because no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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% and each parameter is tagged with the operations it applies to, so the schema already does most of the semantic work; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's contribution is the bw_describe escape hatch for parameters whose meaning varies per operation (format, object_name, object_type, source_system), which is useful but does not itself explain any parameter's meaning.

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 names a specific verb (find) and enumerates the concrete resource families it covers — search, cross references, folder contents, data flows, source systems, DataSources, roles, metadata tables, system profile — which maps one-to-one onto the operation enum, so an agent can tell this is the discovery/query tool rather than a write or data-extraction sibling. It loses a point only because 'Find BW objects and their relations' is a broad umbrella and it never explicitly says it is not the tool for reading object content (bw_read) or activating objects.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of covered domains, and the second sentence gives genuinely useful guidance on how to drill into a specific operation via bw_describe. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement relative to siblings such as bw_read, bw_query_data, or bw_monitor, and no prerequisites or typical call sequence are given, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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