find_shape

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify what 'first' means (ordering), whether matching is case-sensitive, what happens if no shape is found, or whether the operation is read-only. The bare mention of 'find' implies a read, but side effects and edge cases are undisclosed.

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 with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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 is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, which may document return values. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the term 'first' (ordering) and does not clarify scope (e.g., current page vs document). This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has a single `text` parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by indicating that `text` is the substring to search for in shapes' text ('contains `text`'). This clarifies the parameter's purpose but does not explain formatting, case sensitivity, or matching rules.

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 action: 'Find the first shape whose text contains `text`.' This has a specific verb (Find), a resource (shape), and a precise search condition. It is distinct from siblings like list_shapes, which presumably lists all shapes.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or indicate how this relates to list_shapes or other search-like tools. The description gives no context for choosing this tool.

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