etabs_find_objects

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

Annotations only give a thin safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries extra weight. It discloses the two non-obvious behaviors: results are reusable object names, and the call can mutate selection state ('can select them'), which explains why readOnlyHint is false for a 'find' operation.

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?

A single tight sentence of purpose plus examples, followed by one clause on output and side effects. The purpose and scope are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the primary use cases, output reusability and the selection side effect. With 12 parameters at 58% documented coverage, a few gaps remain (limit semantics, kind enum behavior), but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is only 58%, with kind, limit, max_ratio and stories undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mapping examples to those params ('columns on Story3' → role+stories, 'longer than 8 m' → min_length, 'D/C over 0.9' → max_ratio, 'this box' → box), but leaves units formatting, default limit and pagination implications unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (find objects) and makes it concrete with four engineering-criteria examples (story, length, D/C, bounding box). It distinguishes itself from etabs_list_objects by being criteria-driven rather than a plain enumeration, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 example queries imply when to reach for this tool (attribute/geometry/ratio-based search), but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over etabs_list_objects or etabs_select, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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