find_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explains conjunction semantics, what `text` searches across, how `in_region` overlap works, and the meaning of `count`, `truncated`, and `objects`. It does not explicitly state read-only status, though 'Finds' strongly implies it.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then filter semantics, then return shape. Every sentence adds relevant information, with no obvious 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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the filters and the return fields. The one gap is that the `objects` summaries are defined only by reference to describe_board, so the agent may need to consult that sibling for the exact object shape.

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 already high at 86%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for `text` (shape text, connector labels, table cells, formula LaTeX), `regex` (alternative to text), and `in_region` (bounding-box overlap). It adds less for `page`, `path`, `type`, and `limit`, which are already mostly covered by 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Finds objects on a page' by text, regex, type, or area. It also clarifies the targeted-search nature versus reading the whole board, which distinguishes it from broader board-reading siblings like describe_board.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for finding objects without reading the whole board. It explains that filters combine conjunctively, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool such as describe_board as a usage choice.

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