find_strip_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that search is across strip kinds, that matches have scores, and that ambiguity is possible. It does not disclose matching semantics, return format, pagination, or performance traits, which would be valuable for a search tool without 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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first states the action and scope, second gives a critical safety caveat. The most important constraint is prominently placed and every word serves a purpose.

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 simple search tool, the key ambiguity caveat is present. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out what the response contains, how 'top score' is determined, and how max_results affects results. This is enough for basic use but not fully complete for an agent to predict behavior confidently.

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 only 33% with descriptions limited to kinds. The description clarifies that the query relates to scribble-strip names and that kinds can scope the search, but it leaves max_results semantics and query matching details (e.g., partial, exact, case sensitivity) unstated. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 specific action ('Search scribble-strip names') and a clear resource ('across strip kinds'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_strips, but the function is easy to distinguish from mutating tools.

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 useful post-search guidance: when multiple matches share the top score, use an explicit kind or index before writing. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_strips, or what prerequisites or limitations apply.

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