Resolve Ygdria tree nodes by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that, omitting search scope, archived-item handling, result limits, and what the candidate results contain.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core search purpose and the placementId follow-up are both stated compactly.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It does not explain how to scope searches, whether archived nodes are included, how many results are returned, or what a placementId is used for.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that query is a title fragment and mentions placementId as an output value, but it says nothing about limit, includeArchived, or parentPlacementId.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find candidate placement nodes by a title fragment. It distinguishes the tool from a direct node lookup by emphasizing candidate search, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_tree_node or list_tree_children.

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?

It implies a workflow: first find candidates by title fragment, then navigate using their placementId values. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions, alternatives, or prerequisites for choosing this tool over the many sibling tree-search and navigation tools.

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