find_masters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it explains what is searched, the 100-item cap, inclusion of local custom icons, and how those hits are labeled. It is read-oriented and lacks side effects, though it does not explicitly describe the full return shape or behavior when no stencils are open.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct useful information, with the core search action and key constraint front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers search scope, listing cap, and local-icon behavior, but it omits the effect of the `stencil` parameter and—because no output schema exists—never explicitly states what the returned records look like. An agent could invoke it correctly for a plain search but would be guessing about stencil filtering and return shape.

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 description adds real semantics for `query` (substring matching, omit to list all, cap of 100), but it never mentions the `stencil` parameter, leaving an entire parameter unexplained in both schema and description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this omission is a significant gap.

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?

States a specific action ('Search masters') along with the resource ('in the open stencils'), matching key ('name substring'), and the broader listing behavior when query is omitted. The parenthetical '(droppable shapes)' removes ambiguity, and the local-icon inclusion distinguishes it from similar discovery 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?

Gives clear practical context: search within open stencils, use a substring, and omit query to list all results up to 100. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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