label_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and substring semantics, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool returns (label IDs? names? timestamps?), whether it returns all matches or just the first, or behavior when no match is found — significant gaps for a search tool.

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 reasonably concise — two short paragraphs plus an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and use case. The Args/usage section is slightly redundant with the schema but acceptable given 0% schema coverage.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the completeness bar is moderate. The description covers purpose and use case adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify the return format and matching behavior more thoroughly, and it doesn't mention return format or edge cases like empty results.

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 compensate for the single 'query' parameter. The description explains it as 'Text to search for within label text' in the Args section, which adds modest meaning. However, it doesn't clarify format requirements (e.g., exact substring, regex support) or return behavior tied to the parameter.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Find labels') with a specific criterion (text contains search string, case-insensitive). It distinguishes from sibling label tools by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with label_list or label_get_all which could also retrieve labels.

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 a useful use case ('locating a specific marker in a long recording without reading through every label') which conveys when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like label_list or label_get_all for when one wants all labels.

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