Find target rules, skills and recipes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the bar is low. The description still adds real value: it warns that the tool grants no execution or permission, and that returned metadata must be followed by reading the full files before acting — behavior not derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the caveat ('no execution or permission grant') front-loaded in the same breath. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description covers what the tool produces (instructions/skill metadata), the required follow-up action, and its safety posture; only the relative ranking against sibling discovery tools (search_text, list_dir) is left unaddressed.

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?

Single optional 'path' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents purpose, type, and default. The description's 'for a target path' merely restates it without adding format or path-resolution detail; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('applicable repository instructions and skill metadata') scoped to a target path. It is distinguishable from read_file/list_dir/search_text by being about discovering rules/skills metadata rather than raw content, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

'Read the selected full files before acting' implies a two-step workflow (this tool locates, another read retrieves content), which is useful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_text or list_dir, or what conditions make it inapplicable.

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