find_assistants

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 real behavioral traits: disabled assistants are excluded by default unless include_disabled is set, and matching defaults to all-of rather than any-of. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result ordering, so disclosure is partial for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then an Args/Returns breakdown that is easy to scan. Every sentence is relevant. Minor redundancy in the two-sentence opening, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly defers with 'Returns: JSON result.' Given the tool is a read-only discovery query with only three simple parameters, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and default filtering adequately. Permission and result-shape behavior remain unstated but are low-risk here.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: capabilities is given a format and example ("JSON list of required capability terms, e.g. ['swift', 'ios']"), any_of is explained as match-any-vs-all with its default, and include_disabled is explained. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not resolve the type mismatch between the schema's string type and the 'JSON list' 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find assistants') plus the discriminating filter ('whose capabilities match the given requirements'). The rationale sentence clarifies it is capability-based discovery distinct from id-based lookup, which separates it from the sibling list_assistants. It stops short of naming list_assistants explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 line 'so a lead agent does not need to know every assistant's id' gives an implied when-to-use (capability-driven discovery rather than id lookup). However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as list_assistants for enumerating everything. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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