find_config_key

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: wildcard support, equivalent spelling forms (A:B, A__B, a.b), and that values are never returned (safety for secrets). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or result format details beyond 'values are never returned'.

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, front-loaded with the scope, followed by key semantics. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more to cover behavioral aspects (e.g., what the results contain, ordering, pagination). It adds important semantics but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'pattern' supports wildcard `*` and that different spellings match each other, which adds crucial syntax/semantic meaning beyond the schema title 'Pattern'. It doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter, but the wildcard guidance is valuable. Baseline for 0% coverage would be low, but the description partially compensates for the main parameter.

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 resource (config key), and clarifies the scope: where keys are defined (json/yaml/env) and read in code. This is a clear, distinctive purpose. It doesn't reference sibling tools for differentiation, but 'config key' is unambiguous enough on its own.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies searching for config key definitions and reads, which is clear enough from the purpose, but it doesn't mention alternatives like get_symbol or search_symbols. Implied context only.

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