object_find_var

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it only explains traversal scope. It does not state what the tool returns, what happens when the variable is not found, whether it is purely read-only, or how path resolution behaves, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 tightly-written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then defines the key scope options. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, so every word earns its place.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits return format, not-found behavior, and alternative-tool differentiation, and it does not compensate for the missing output schema by describing what the agent should expect from a successful call.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It effectively explains lookup_type via 'upward_scope' and 'obj_owned', and 'variable by name' maps to var_name, but object_path is left implicit and object_type relies on the schema's own description.

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 specific action ('Find a variable by name') and resource, and the two scope modes make the central behavior concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling object_find_child_var, but the scope-control wording narrows the purpose enough to avoid major confusion.

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 context for choosing between 'upward_scope' and 'obj_owned' by defining them as 'search hierarchy' and 'direct children only'. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like object_find_child_var, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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