geck_find_list_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies a read-only search operation and the hint about Editor ID/Form ID is useful, but the description does not disclose matching semantics, case sensitivity, exact-match behavior, what happens with zero or multiple matches, or whether any state changes occur.

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 tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, it is under-specified given the tool's parameter complexity and the close sibling relationships, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a large sibling set that includes geck_list_view_rows, the description is incomplete. It leaves parameter semantics, matching behavior, and tool-selection guidance implicit. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not enough else.

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%, and there are 8 parameters. The description only hints at what 'query' should contain ('usually Editor ID or Form ID') but does not explain exact, column, handle, backend, list_index, max_matches, or title_regex. An agent cannot determine the meaning and interaction of these parameters from the description.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('rows in a GECK ListView'), and the search basis ('by text, usually Editor ID or Form ID'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly position itself against the close sibling geck_list_view_rows.

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: use this tool when you need to locate rows in a ListView by text. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to geck_list_view_rows, which appears to be a closely related alternative.

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