find_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavioral traits. It discloses grouping and the ability to list everything without search, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, case sensitivity, or result limits. The schema covers parameters completely, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality (search, list, group) and hints at the return structure (grouped by type). There is no output schema, so the description could explain the return format more fully, but it is adequate for a search tool.

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 each parameter described. The tool description adds value by explaining the combined search behavior (multiple words must all match) and the effect of omitting search. This provides useful context beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 searches for rooms/studios, equipment/licenses, and staff by name, with results grouped by type. It also distinguishes the tool's listing capability and its role in providing names for other tools, clearly differentiating from the sibling getters.

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 says to use it 'to find entities and the exact names to pass to other tools', which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are all getters, making the usage guidance adequate but not comprehensive.

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