find_objects

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Search' wording is consistent with that. The description adds minor behavioral context (glob-based matching) but does not disclose pagination, match semantics (AND vs OR among filters), or behavior when all filters are null, which would be relevant 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?

A single 13-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists every filter dimension compactly. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail — 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?

The output schema covers return values and the annotation covers safety, but the description omits filter-combination semantics, empty-filter behavior, and differentiation from list_objects/find_error_objects. For a four-optional-parameter search tool, an agent has most of what it needs but must guess at several operational details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does name all four properties and clarifies that name_pattern uses glob syntax, which adds real value beyond the empty schema. However, it leaves gaps: whether filters combine with AND/OR, whether matching is case-sensitive, and what a null value means.

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 clear action ('Search') with a specific resource ('objects') and enumerates the filter dimensions: name pattern (glob), type, material, and collection. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_objects or find_error_objects, but the filter-based search intent is plainly distinct from listing or error-finding.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_objects (which may return all objects) or find_error_objects (which searches a narrower category). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'use X instead' hints, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection from the sibling names alone.

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