find_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the description 'Find graph nodes' implies a query. It mentions case-insensitive matching, which is a behavioral trait. But it lacks information about potential errors (e.g., if no match found) or pagination. Given no annotations, the description provides some but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 concise: 3 short paragraphs. It opens with the core purpose, then gives usage context笑容, then param docs. The sphinx-style parameter docs are structured and clear. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 tool has 2 params (1 required), a simple purpose, and an output schema for return structure. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and explains both parameters. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists, so that is not necessary. For a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient. Could mention case-insensitivity as a behavior, but that is disclosed. Only minor gaps like error behavior, so a 4 out of 5.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explicitly explains the 'name' parameter as 'Function, type, or protocol name to search for' and 'kind' as 'Optional kind filter: module | class | struct | protocol | function | method | etc.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists names and types. The description adds the enum-like values for kind, which is helpful.

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 it finds graph nodes by name, specifically without needing the full stable ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node by focusing on name-based lookup. The description also mentions matching against name and qualname, giving specific resource types.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Use when you know a function or class name from reading code and need its stable ID.' This helps an agent decide when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. However, the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion with siblings like get_node.

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