add_map_find_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutation action ('Add'), the node's key-existence check behavior, and its output behavior (returns the value and a bool). This is meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it does not disclose prerequisites such as whether blueprint_name must already exist or what happens when node_position is omitted.

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 well-organized with a clear opening line, a short semantic comparison, an Args section, a KB pointer, and an example. There is minor redundancy in restating the value-returning behavior across the opening, the Ch. 13 comparison, and the returns sentence, but the structure keeps the content scannable and front-loaded.

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 three-parameter add-node tool, the description covers the core what, the parameters, a knowledge-base reference, and a concrete invocation example. Since an output schema exists, return-format details are not required. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites and default positioning behavior, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the common case.

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, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with at least basic explanations: blueprint_name identifies the blueprint, map_variable names the map variable, and node_position is described as an [X, Y] graph position. The map_variable explanation is somewhat shallow, but the example and format hints add enough value beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Map FIND node'. It immediately explains the operation's purpose ('get a value by key') and differentiates it from the sibling add_map_contains_node by noting FIND also returns the value. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 directly compares FIND to CONTAINS: 'The FIND node is like CONTAINS but also returns the value.' This makes the main alternative explicit and gives the agent a clear basis for choosing this tool when the value is needed. However, it stops short of an explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use directive or mentioning other map-related siblings like add_map_values_node.

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