find_replacements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the game is not modified ('Nothing in the game is changed') and a browser page is opened, plus the needs_your_words output bucket is explained. It says nothing about network calls to sound sources, licensing constraints on results, runtime, or pagination, which matter for a tool that searches external replacement audio.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the pipeline and followed by scope, safety, and the fallback rule. The needs_your_words sentence is slightly dense and reads as a fragment, but no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the needs_your_words grouping the agent must act on. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, it omits licensing behavior and per-event result counts, which an agent needs to set correctly before calling. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains events precisely ('limits it to those names') and implicitly covers path (the game to scan) and open_browser ('open one page'), and hints at per_event via grouping by event. It says nothing about license (cc0/commercial/any) or per_event's count semantics, leaving the two most consequential parameters to be inferred from titles alone.

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 names a concrete multi-step pipeline: scan a game for oscillator sound effects, search for natural replacements, and open a grouped results page. That distinguishes it from the sibling search_sounds, which it explicitly names as the manual fallback. It is slightly less crisp than a single verb+resource statement because three operations are bundled, but the agent can still tell what the tool produces.

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?

It gives real scoping guidance: music is excluded, the events parameter restricts the scan to named events, and events under needs_your_words have no dictionary entry so the agent should read call sites and use search_sounds itself. That is a clear hand-off rule to an alternative. It does not cover when to prefer find_elsewhere or audition_sounds, but the named fallback is the relevant one.

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