search_statetree_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns matches with location information (state, evaluator list, transition, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not mention search behavior details like case sensitivity, substring matching (though class_filter hints at this), or potential performance implications. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, two example lines, one sentence for return info, and a structured parameter list. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter descriptions are separate but clear. Minor improvement would be to combine the two example lines into a single sentence for tighter structure.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains all parameters, describes return values with location context, and provides example queries. Missing details like sorting or result limits are minor, as the output schema likely covers structure. The description enables effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_path (content path), class_filter (substring filter with examples), and category (filter options like 'task', 'evaluator', etc.). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema's type information. The inclusion of valid category strings is particularly useful.

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's purpose: searching for nodes across the entire StateTree by class name or category. The verb 'Search' and resource 'nodes' are specific, and the example questions illustrate common use cases. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_statetree_node or get_statetree_states, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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 provides implicit usage context through example questions ('Is MassEnemyAttackTask used?' or 'Which states have conditions?'), suggesting scenarios where searching is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative tools (e.g., get_statetree_node for a known node ID) would be better suited. No prerequisites or limitations are mentioned.

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