find_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'post a Looking intent,' which suggests a possible side effect, but does not clarify whether this creates a visible post, modifies state, requires permissions, or is purely a matching operation. The match criteria and roster behavior are also opaque.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary purpose before detailing the mechanism. It is appropriately brief, though the phrase 'post a Looking intent' is compact to the point of being cryptic.

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 complexity—8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is far too thin. It leaves unclear how to construct a valid request, whether body/title are required, what the matching output looks like, and what side effects occur.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate. It adds slight context for intentId ('reuse intentId') and hints that body/title form a Looking intent, but it does not explain how skills, urgency, requiredBadges, or capabilityOffer influence matching.

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 states a concrete outcome ('Discover collaborators') and a mechanism ('post a Looking intent (or reuse intentId) and match the Atlas roster'). The 'Atlas roster' and 'Looking intent' terminology distinguishes this from sibling tools like request_collaboration or look_around, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies use when the agent wants to find or match collaborators, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of siblings like request_collaboration or look_around. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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