find_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (id, name, type, bounds) and a cap on matches (default 50). However, it does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, which is important 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative without redundancy. It efficiently covers search criteria, return fields, and the default limit.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides sufficient details: current page scope, substring name matching, type examples, return fields, and match limit. It could optionally mention read-only nature but remains adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'name' is a substring match, 'type' takes values like FRAME, TEXT, etc., and 'max' is an integer defaulting to 50. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'nodes on the current page'. It specifies the search criteria (name substring, type) and lists example types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_node or get_canvas_tree.

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 implies use when searching for nodes by name or type, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context for when to prefer this over other node-related tools.

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