eda_find_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('typed tool names') and the required next step ('inspect eda_tool_schema before invoking').

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction to inspect eda_tool_schema is placed second, making the structure efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple single-parameter, optional-query read-only tool, the description covers the core discovery workflow and points to eda_tool_schema as the next step. The only minor gap is empty-query behavior, but the schema default and annotations mitigate that concern.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines a string 'query' with a default. The description compensates by indicating the query can search by name, category, or purpose, but it does not explain behavior when query is empty or omitted, leaving some ambiguity about the parameter's full 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?

The description states a specific action ('Search available tools') with distinct search dimensions (name, category, purpose). It also differentiates the tool from siblings by noting it returns typed tool names and that eda_tool_schema should be inspected before invoking, making its role in the tool-discovery workflow clear.

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 gives a clear workflow: use this tool to find tools, then inspect eda_tool_schema before invoking. This implies positioning relative to eda_tool_schema and eda_invoke, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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