find_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses case-insensitive substring vs exact layer matching, recursive traversal bounded by max_depth, pagination via offset/limit, and truncation handling ('offset += limit'). It does not state permission requirements or whether the traversal is expensive on large scenes, leaving minor gaps for a read tool with no annotations.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core operation, then filter semantics, then pagination/return behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated 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?

For a 7-parameter, all-optional search tool, the description covers operation, filter semantics, traversal bounds, and pagination. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the truncation/next-page workflow, leaving no practical gap.

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 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, and the description goes beyond it by explaining how filters combine ('and/or'), that layer matching is exact while name matching is substring, and how offset/limit interact with the truncated flag. It adds real semantics on top of the already-documented parameters.

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 and resource ('Find components') plus the exact filterable dimensions (name substring, layer, type), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation without opening the schema. It also explicitly contrasts its no-filter behavior with the sibling list_components ('same traversal as'), separating it from the nearest alternative.

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 gives clear usage context: with filters it narrows results, with no filters it behaves like list_components up to max_depth. That implicitly routes the agent away from this tool when no filtering is needed, but it never explicitly states when to prefer get_component_info, get_selection, or list_components, so guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

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