find_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter defaults and filtering behavior, but does not disclose how partial matches are resolved (e.g., whether multiple results are returned) or the exact output structure beyond 'canonical definition and doc URL.' This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence plus a compact Args list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every line adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers all parameters and gives the core outcome. However, it lacks detail about the return format or how to handle ambiguous partial matches, which would be useful for the agent to know. Still, it is complete enough for a straightforward resolve operation.

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 the description must compensate fully. It does: each parameter is clearly explained with examples (name), allowed values and default behavior (language), and default versioning (version). This goes well beyond the bare schema titles and provides rich, actionable semantics.

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 opens with a specific and actionable purpose: 'Resolve a CUDA-Q API symbol to its canonical definition and doc URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_docs (which presumably searches docs more broadly) by focusing on resolving a specific symbol to its authoritative definition and documentation URL.

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 clearly states the tool's function and parameter behaviors (e.g., 'omit for both', 'Defaults to the installed cudaq version'), giving the reader enough context to decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools such as search_docs or get_page, so it stops short of full exclusions or alternative guidance.

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