find_gameobjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns only instance IDs, is paginated, and suggests subsequent resource calls. It could explicitly state that it is read-only, but the guidance to use manage_gameobject for CRUD implies it. No contradictions.

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 concise (three sentences) with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return type and guidance, then the alternative tool. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, multiple search methods) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it does, what it returns, how to paginate, and when to choose an alternative. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns only instance IDs and page_size controls results, and by guiding to resources for full data. This contextualizes the parameters beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'GameObjects', listing specific search methods (name, tag, layer, component type, path). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'manage_gameobject' tool, which handles CRUD operations.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (searching for GameObjects) and when not to (for CRUD, use manage_gameobject instead). Also explains pagination and directs to resources for full data, providing clear context for usage.

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