jar_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: search scope (build output, Maven repo, Gradle cache) and the classifier behavior ('also list -sources, -javadoc and -tests jars'). No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: core purpose first, then a practical use case, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Covers all four parameters, the search domain, and the intended workflow. Since an output schema exists, return values are already handled. The description is complete for correct invocation and routing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query with glob example, search_path with path separator note, include_classifiers with concrete classifier names, and limit as maximum count. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 jar files on this machine by name', with concrete scopes (build output, Maven repo, Gradle cache). The use case of turning a jar name into a path for other tools clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jar_find_class or jar_search.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to turn ... into a path you can pass to the other tools.' This implies when to invoke it, but does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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