Find path references

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds real context: cost=medium, the active-client requirement, and the bounded-candidates output shape. It also points to tool-schema for exact fields on failure, which is useful operational guidance beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence, followed by compact labeled fields (Phase/cost/Requires/Produces/Safety). The inline signature duplicates the schema slightly, but overall it is tight and free of filler.

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?

For a read-only, schema-fully-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, cost, output shape, and failure handling. Only the lack of sibling routing guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema already documents query, limit, and threadContext fully. The description restates the signature but adds no meaning (e.g., ranking behavior or how limit interacts with results) beyond what structured data already carries. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (find) and a well-scoped resource (constants containing instance path fragments like ReplicatedStorage/Workspace), which is a genuinely distinct scope from sibling xref tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Provides preconditions (Requires: active-client) and a phase marker (observe), which imply context of use. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings like find-constants-xref, find-string-xrefs, or resolve-entity, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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