find_error_objects

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly read-only. The description adds specific examples of issues it detects, which enriches the behavioral understanding. But it doesn't describe the output format or whether it returns a list of object IDs or detailed error information, though there is an output schema that may cover this. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb 'Find' and the subject 'objects with issues', followed by concise examples. It is efficient and to the point, with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose and the kinds of issues, which is enough for an agent to decide when to call it. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format, but the output schema likely covers that. Given the simplicity, it's highly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description's job is to explain what the tool operates on. It describes the scope (objects with issues) and gives examples of issue types, which is meaningful. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets that with clear context.

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 tool finds objects with issues, listing specific examples (missing textures, broken modifiers, invalid references). This distinguishes it from generic find_objects, which likely finds objects by name or criteria. However, it could be more explicit that it scans for errors rather than filtering by user-defined criteria, but the examples provide good clarity.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to identify objects with problems. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like find_objects, but the sibling name suggests a contrast. Given the context, an agent can infer that find_objects is for general search and this one is for error detection, but it's not spelled out.

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