clip_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions recursion through sub-bins, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or side effects. Basic but incomplete.

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 sentence that is efficient, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or behavior when no matches are found. It could be more complete without being verbose.

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 2 parameters (bin_handle and name_contains) with 0% description coverage. The tool description only explains 'by substring of the clip name' for name_contains but does not clarify the bin_handle parameter (likely to specify starting bin). It adds little meaning beyond the 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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('clips'), with details on substring matching of clip name and recursion through sub-bins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clip_list and various search tools.

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 usage for substring-based search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., clip_list for listing all clips). It lacks context about when not to use it.

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