wavefunction__find_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions matching and ranking but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., no matches), or whether it is a read-only operation. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 brief and to the point, but includes an extraneous bracketed prefix '[wavefunction — demand-side agent/collective discovery]' that could be omitted. The core sentence is efficient.

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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain output format (ranking scores), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., user must have a collapsed intention from wavefunction__collapse).

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It implies 'user_id' identifies whose intention to use, but does not explain format, origin, or relationship to other tools. The description adds minimal value 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 the tool matches a user's collapsed intention to constitutionally-aligned agents/collectives, ranked by alignment score. The verb 'Match' and resource 'agents/collectives' are specific and distinct from siblings like wavefunction__collapse (which produces the collapsed intention).

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 after a user's intention is collapsed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like wavefunction__intake or wavefunction__register_collective. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative guidance is provided.

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