hb_garden_find

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked, how pagination or the "limit" default behaves, or what permissions are needed. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

Three words with zero padding or repetition, so there is no bloat to penalize. However, it is a bare fragment with no structure, and the single phrase does not earn its place because it conveys nothing the tool name did not already convey.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least characterize the search domain and result shape, and it does neither. The only fully specified surface is the two-parameter input schema, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke this confidently in a 50-tool environment.

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" (including its default of 10) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, matching, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies where the schema does all the work.

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?

"Search the garden" does state a verb and a nominal resource, but "garden" is never defined and the phrase effectively restates the tool name hb_garden_find. With no differentiation from siblings like hb_kb_search, hb_garden_get, or hb_garden_run, an agent cannot tell what domain this searches or how it differs.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. The verb "Search" faintly implies a retrieval use case, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over hb_kb_search or hb_garden_get.

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