find_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive substring matching, and/or filter combination, page-wide default scope, and that ids are returned — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or no-match behavior, which matter for a search tool.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the search semantics come first, immediately followed by the return value and its purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, how it matches, its default scope, and what is returned. Only result-set size and edge-case behavior are left unaddressed.

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 still adds value by stating that name matching is a case-insensitive substring and that name and type filters combine as and/or, details the schema does not spell out.

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 (searches nodes), the scope (open file), and the exact matching semantics (name substring, case-insensitive, and/or type). It also names the downstream tools that consume the returned id, which distinguishes it from get_node (single known id) and get_node_tree.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: use it to obtain an id for update_node/delete_node/write_node instead of copying a Figma link by hand. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. that get_node should be used when the id is already known or that parentNodeId scoping may be preferred over a page-wide search.

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