find_tb_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful constraint — that `path` and `module` are mutually exclusive — which is a genuine gotcha. But it omits the role of the required `handle` parameter, behavior when both path and module are supplied, no-match behavior, return shape, and the effect of `limit`. This is too thin for an annotation-free tool.

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 18-word sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the two modes and the key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is zero 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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description leaves material gaps: the meaning of `handle`, return format, error/edge-case behavior, and how this tool relates to the large testbench tree tool family. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing at `handle` semantics.

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 50%: only `path` and `module` are described. The description adds real semantic value by stating these two are mutually exclusive, which is not present in the schema. However, it does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters, most critically `handle`, which is required and completely unexplained, and `limit`, whose interaction with path vs module mode is unclear.

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 ('Locate'), a specific resource ('instance(s) in the component_tree'), and two distinct search modes (exact path or module name). This is clear and functionally distinct from sibling tools like get_tb_subtree or lookup_tb_files, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 implies the usage context: call this when you have an exact instance path or a module name to locate instances. However, it gives no exclusions and names no alternatives among the 38 siblings, so an agent gets no explicit guidance on when to prefer find_tb_instance over get_tb_subtree or lookup_tb_files.

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