find_example

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool is a search (implying read-only, non-destructive), and that it returns 'working example notebooks and HTML reference pages.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the output format. For a simple search tool this is acceptable, but the lack of any protection annotation means the description should be more explicit about its harmless nature.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed immediately after. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 search tool with two parameters, the description is mostly complete: it explains what is searched and when to use it. However, the undocumented 'documentationRoot' parameter is a clear gap, and there is no mention of the return value structure (though no output schema exists to lean on). This prevents full completeness.

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 coverage is only 50% (the 'query' parameter is described, but 'documentationRoot' is not). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain what documentationRoot does, nor does it clarify how query should be formatted beyond the schema's example. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: searching nTop's shipped documentation (example notebooks and HTML reference pages) for a given block. It uses a specific verb ('search') and a distinct resource, and implicitly differentiates from siblings like search_blocks (which likely searches the block catalog) and inspect_notebook (which examines a specific notebook).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Consult this BEFORE reverse-engineering a block's wiring.' It explains the advantage (nTop ships 100+ example .ntop files with correct inputs and property paths), which helps the agent decide between this and inspection-based tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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