find_drivers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning X/Z debugging, but omits safety information (read-only vs. destructive), performance characteristics, or output format details that would help the agent understand side effects.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure: the first states the purpose and use case, the second documents the parameter. No redundant words or filler content.

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 this is a single-parameter query tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential input semantics adequately. It appropriately delegates return value documentation to the output schema.

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 (only a title). The description compensates effectively by specifying that the signal parameter requires a 'Full hierarchical signal path,' providing essential semantic context missing from the structured schema.

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 specific action (find all drivers) and target resource (signal), and distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_signal or get_signal_value by specifying the unique use case of X/Z debugging.

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 mention of 'useful for X/Z debugging' provides implied usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or which sibling tools (like describe_signal) might be better alternatives for non-debugging scenarios.

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