find_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the matching criteria but does not state the search scope (whole document vs current page), whether results are returned as IDs or node objects, or any read-only guarantees. It also mentions 'properties' as a criterion even though no property parameter exists in the schema.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, which is efficient for an agent scanning multiple tools. Minor ambiguity in 'properties' prevents a perfect score, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

The core invocation details are sufficiently clear for a basic search: the agent can choose a query, type, and withinId. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not disclose the return format, the search scope, or how results should be consumed, making it only minimally viable.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters and clarifies that query is a partial name match, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. The mention of searching by 'properties' is vague and not backed by a corresponding schema parameter, keeping this at the baseline.

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 states a clear action ('Search for nodes') and the matching criteria (name, type, properties), so an agent can tell this is a node-finding tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup tools such as get_nodes_info or search_library, though the search semantics are reasonably distinct.

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 only implies usage through the verb 'search' and the parameter schema; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer find_nodes over get_node_info, get_nodes_info, select_all_by_type, or search_library. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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