Find a complete page template

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it ranks templates, limits to three, and excludes failed accessibility audits. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action, which the description supports without contradiction. More detail on the ranking algorithm could be added, but it's sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how many results, and an exclusion rule. Excellent conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavior: ranking, count, exclusion. The output schema handles return values, so no need to detail them. Slight gap: no mention of ordering for ranking, but acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 'task' parameter's purpose ('product or business task') but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'style' and 'category'. No additional semantic value is introduced.

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 finds and ranks up to three complete React page templates for a given task, with a specific exclusion criterion (failed accessibility audits). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like find_component.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_component, check_template). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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