find_jar

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose the key non-inspecting behavior ('without opening the JAR') and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not describe whether the search is indexed vs. on-demand, how results are ordered, or what happens when multiple criteria are combined, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. Every phrase adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details. This is an appropriately concise definition.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool but does not fully cover the decision space of 8 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain when to use jarPath vs. jarDirectory vs. workspacePath, nor what the returned paths look like. Schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the description leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a useful semantic layer by mapping high-level matching modes (exact path, filename, prefix, substring, Maven coordinates) to the available parameters, but it does not clarify parameter interplay or the meaning of 'limit' and 'match' beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Find'), a clear resource ('JAR paths'), and enumerates the search criteria (exact path, filename, prefix, substring, Maven coordinates). The phrase 'without opening the JAR' distinguishes it from inspect_jar and similar inspection tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 description gives a clear sense of when to use the tool: whenever JAR paths need to be located by various matchers and the JAR's contents do not need to be opened. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for most selection scenarios.

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