find_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it operates on the live runtime scene tree and includes dynamically spawned nodes, and notes the run_interactive prerequisite. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but that's not critical beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence provides an alternative and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 simple search tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, runtime context, alternative, and prerequisite. There is no output schema, but the return value (matching nodes) is implied. A minor gap is not specifying what information is returned for each match, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 100%: both 'pattern' and 'typeFilter' have clear descriptions, including defaults and subclass behavior via is_class(). The tool description doesn't need to add more, and it only reinforces the parameter usage at a high level. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('live runtime scene tree'), clearly stating it matches by name pattern and/or type. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_scene_tree by explicitly mentioning static .tscn analysis.

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 gives a direct alternative: 'For static .tscn analysis, use get_scene_tree.' It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires run_interactive.' This clearly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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