Find All Occurrences

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety, so the description adds value by disclosing the return format ('character offsets') and the performance characteristic ('faster than regex'). This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a specific output detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 annotations and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It states the output type (character offsets) and performance context, but does not detail the exact structure of the return value (e.g., array of numbers vs objects) or clarify how context_id/session_id are used. Still, it is adequate for a simple read-only search tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for substring, context_id, session_id, and case_sensitive. It does not clarify how parameters affect behavior beyond the schema 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 that the tool finds all occurrences of a substring, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('substring'). It also provides a distinguishing performance note ('faster than regex for simple searches') and the output format (character offsets), which differentiates it from siblings like rlm_search_context.

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 clear context on when to use this tool — for simple substring searches where it is faster than regex. This implies the alternative (using regex via rlm_search_context) for more complex patterns, though it does not explicitly name that sibling tool or provide explicit exclusions.

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