api_constants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: matching is case-insensitive and operates on substring input against installed SDK enums. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether values are also returned with names, or any edge-case behaviors such as empty results.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and matching behavior. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context to invoke it correctly: it names the search target and the matching rule. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether the result contains both names and values or just names, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'query' is clearly a substring used for case-insensitive matching against enum names/values. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name, though it stops short of giving examples or format constraints.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('installed SDK enum names/values'), and adds a precise matching criterion ('case-insensitive substring'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like api_describe_interface and sdk_search, which target different resources or operations.

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 when the tool should be used: when an agent needs to discover enum names/values from the installed SDK via a substring. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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