python_find

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it specifies the output is a path, but does not describe behavior like searching PATH, handling not-found cases, or returning multiple matches. This aligns with the baseline where annotations carry the burden and the description adds some but not rich detail.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of usage scenarios or how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., python_list vs python_find). It is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance, preventing a higher score.

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%, with the parameter 'request' documented as 'Optional Python version request.' The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies, and the description provides no additional semantic value.

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's function: 'Find the path of a Python interpreter.' This is a specific verb+resource (find + path of Python interpreter) that distinguishes it from siblings like python_list and python_install. It is not a tautology and precisely communicates the tool's purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose python_find over python_list, python_dir, or other Python-related tools. There are no context clues, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent without decision support.

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