itglue_find_config_match

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral details: fuzzy match, exact match forces Update confidence. However, it does not explain what 'Update confidence' means in terms of the response or what happens if no match is found. The description is partially transparent but lacks completeness on behavioral outcomes.

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, directly stating the tool's action and key behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of matches with confidence scores) or how the agent should interpret results for decision-making. The agent needs more context to act on the output 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining that exact match on serialNumber or assetTag forces Update confidence, which clarifies their special role in the matching algorithm. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 performs fuzzy matching of a configuration name against existing configurations. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying exact match on serialNumber/assetTag forces Update confidence, and it is positioned as a pre-creation check, differentiating it from creation or search tools.

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 before creating a new configuration,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. While it could mention when not to use (e.g., if you already have the configuration ID), the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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