find_components

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

The description discloses that the search is recursive and bounded by max_depth, and that at least one filter is required. Since no annotations are provided, the description effectively covers the behavioral traits. It could be improved by noting whether it returns all matches or stops at first, but it's still clear.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about recursion and filter requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers input parameters and key behavioral constraints (recursion, filter requirement). A minor gap is the lack of mention that 'type' uses an enum (group/component), but the schema includes that, so it's acceptable.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explains all parameters: name substring, layer, type (filter criteria), and max_depth (recursion bound). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, ensuring agents understand how to use each 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?

Clearly states the tool finds components by name substring, layer, and/or type, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_components (which likely lists all) and get_component_info (specific component). The verb 'find' combined with the filtering criteria provides a specific and actionable 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 includes the guideline 'At least one filter should be supplied,' which helps agents avoid empty queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use list_components instead), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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