heading.find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns all matches but does not confirm it is read-only, lacks side-effect disclosure, or mention what happens on failure (e.g., no matches).

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 sentence states purpose and modes, second sentence adds critical usage nuance about disambiguation. Front-loaded and 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?

Given 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the search modes and disambiguation need. Minor omission: no mention of return format or behavior when no matches found.

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 add meaning. It explains the 'heading' parameter can be leaf text or a path, and implies the delimiter parameter, but does not clarify 'file' or 'vault' meaning.

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 finds headings using leaf text or a full path, and distinguishes it as a search-only tool distinct from surgical-edit siblings like heading.rename or block.replace.

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 mentions that surgical-edit tools require disambiguation when multiple matches are found, implying when this tool is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like block.find or search.content.

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