find_systems_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the limit cap of 500, the return structure (items with system_name and system_id, plus meta), and implies a read-only nature by searching. It doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, but the context suggests it. Overall adequate.

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 very concise at four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, enumerates inputs clearly, and includes behavioral constraints and output format without any filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (as per context signals), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints (limit cap), output structure, and workflow hint. It is complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It identifies 'name' as hostname, clarifies that 'limit' and 'offset' are optional, and adds that 'limit' is capped at 500. This provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 systems by hostname, using partial hostname input. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_systems_by_ip' by specifying hostname search, and it's positioned as the first step when user input is a partial hostname.

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 states 'Use this first when user input is a partial hostname', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also advises that if multiple systems match, the agent should ask the user to choose a system_id, offering a concrete workflow step.

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