find_unit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Search the model,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, case sensitivity, result limits, or whether multiple matches are returned. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent about side effects or edge cases.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple search operation.

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 has an output schema (as per context signals), which likely describes the return format, so the description does not need to cover that. For a simple search by name substring, the description provides enough context about what is searched and how. The lack of explicit alternative guidance is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 the description carries the burden of explaining the 'name' parameter. It clarifies that the parameter is a substring used for matching, which adds meaning beyond the schema's mere 'Name' label. However, it does not specify case sensitivity, wildcards, or trimming behavior, leaving some gaps despite the basic clarification.

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'), a specific resource ('the model for SysML Unit-stereotyped elements'), and the matching method ('by name substring'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like find_by_name or find_by_type by specifying the stereotype and substring behavior, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (find_by_name, find_by_type, find_by_qualified_name, etc.). It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would favor one over the other, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the stereotype-specific scope.

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