Find ATF Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable context by stating the output (list of tests with sys_ids) and how it connects to run_atf_test. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: first sentence states the core action, second explains the return value, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type and purpose. It covers the tool's role in the ATF workflow sufficiently for a search tool, though it could elaborate on output structure if needed.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters. The description's mention of 'name, description, or category' only echoes the schema's search_term and category definitions, adding no new parameter 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 clearly states it searches for ATF tests with specific fields (name, description, category) and returns sys_ids for later execution. It distinguishes itself from the sibling run_atf_test tool by explicitly noting the chaining workflow.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to discover which ATF tests exist before running them,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the reference to passing sys_ids to run_atf_test implies the distinction from execution tools.

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