find_chromium_owners_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search method ('searching up the directory tree') but omits critical details such as the return format (e.g., list of OWNERS file paths or contents), error handling for invalid paths, or performance considerations like rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Find OWNERS files') and method ('searching up the directory tree'), with no redundant or wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., OWNERS file contents or paths), error conditions, or how it integrates with the Chromium codebase context. For a tool with no structured output, more behavioral and result details are needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'file_path' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the path is used to traverse directories, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like path format constraints or examples beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Find OWNERS files') and the target resource ('for a given file path in Chromium source code'), with the method 'by searching up the directory tree' providing additional specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_chromium_folder' or 'get_chromium_file' by focusing on ownership metadata rather than file contents or listings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_reviewers_for_cl' or 'get_gerrit_cl_status', which might relate to code ownership. It implies usage for finding ownership information in Chromium but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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