latex_find_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool uses kpsewhich and is limited to 'simple' package/class filenames, but it does not describe what happens on success or failure (e.g., return value, error behavior) or whether it is purely read-only. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the key information—operation, resource type, and method—into minimal words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool, and the description covers the core operation, especially since an output schema exists to document return values. However, with no annotations, the description does not fully cover usage context, limitations of 'simple', or expected behavior when the file is not found, so it is only minimally 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?

The only parameter, 'filename', has no schema description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying it is a 'TeX package or class filename' and hinting at the expected granularity via 'simple'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare property name, though it still leaves open details like extension or path format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and a clear resource ('TeX package or class filename') and mentions the underlying mechanism (TeX Live kpsewhich). It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like latex_build and latex_clean, which are clearly different operations.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'resolve' and the TeX domain, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over latex_environment, latex_build, or latex_clean. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, though the sibling names make the distinction fairly intuitive.

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