node_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal recursion and useful defaults (path '/', depth 5) as well as matching semantics (case-insensitive substring, exact type). However, it does not disclose whether the search is read-only, what happens on invalid paths, or how results are returned.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence purpose and then uses a compact parameter list. Every line carries semantic value, with no filler or repetition.

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 parameter documentation is strong, but there is no output schema and no description of the return value, result format, empty-result behavior, or how multiple filters interact. An agent can call the tool, but cannot predict what it will receive back.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: path default '/', name as case-insensitive substring, type as exact case-insensitive, family with examples, and depth as max recursion with default 5. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input 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 states a specific action ('Search for nodes') with clear matching criteria (name/type/family) and recursive scope. It distinguishes itself from node_get and node_create, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related node_list, so it is not a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use node_find versus alternatives like node_list or node_get. The filtering semantics imply it is for locating nodes by criteria, but the description never states when this tool should be preferred or when another sibling should be used.

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