Lexicon Find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose result ordering ('best matches first') and that results include a 'whether the change worked' signal, which is useful behavioral context. However it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor any permission or rate considerations, leaving the safety profile unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by the two directional examples. The parentheticals are informative rather than filler, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, two of which ('who', 'project') are entirely undocumented, the definition is only partially complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'text' parameter well via the example text='high shelf', but the 'who' and 'project' parameters are documented nowhere in either the schema or the description, so only one of three parameters gains meaning.

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+resource: a bidirectional lookup between a person's vocabulary and system terms, with a concrete example ('crisp', 'high shelf'). It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the nearby siblings lexicon_note and lexicon_view, so the agent must infer the read-vs-write split from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the motivating examples ('what did X mean last time', 'so you can say it their way'), which convey why an agent would call it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to lexicon_note/lexicon_view as alternatives for writing or viewing entries.

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