find_examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the corpus is 'cached mods' and that results carry file:line context, which is useful. It does not disclose how results are grouped (per_mod), pagination, or result ordering.

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?

A single compact sentence with front-loaded purpose and illustrative examples; every clause earns its place. It is terse rather than padded, though the examples trade a little length for clarity.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain limit, context, and per_mod. It covers only api_name, leaving an agent unable to tune the query or predict result shape.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only illustrates the api_name format. The three shaping parameters — limit, context, per_mod — are never explained; 'file:line context' faintly gestures at 'context' but gives no units or semantics.

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+resource: finding real usages of an API name across cached mods with file:line context. The examples of qualified names ('f_addCircle', 'landscape.zones.f_addCircle') make the target concrete. It does not explicitly name siblings like search_api or search_mod_code, so the boundary between this and those tools is left to inference.

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 — you use this to see how an API is actually called in existing mods — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer search_api or search_mod_code instead. An agent can infer the context but is not routed.

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