outliner.find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the action ('search') and the types of items searched, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any limits beyond the 'limit' parameter in the schema. The description adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Search'. Every word earns its place: it lists the target resource types and the search criterion ('by name'). No extraneous or redundant information.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list of IDs, names?), behavior when no results are found, and how to interpret the 'kind' parameter. Sibling tools suggest adjacent functionality, but the description does not tie them together or complete the picture.

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 should compensate. However, it does not explain the meaning of the 'kind' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema's titles and defaults already indicate. The description adds no value to understanding the parameters, relying entirely on the schema's minimal hints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' and lists exactly four resource types: objects, collections, scenes, and view layers. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like outliner.tree (which likely shows hierarchical tree) and outliner.orphans (which finds orphaned data). The qualifier 'by name' further specifies the search method.

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 implies this tool is for name-based searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as outliner.describe (which might describe a known item) or api.search (which could be more general). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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