find_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it matches both native classes and custom class_name scripts, warns that is_class alone misses custom nodes, defines name as substring, sets path/recursive/max defaults, and clarifies 'LIVE'/'RUNNING' scope. This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the primary purpose and output, then quickly enumerates parameter meanings. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 query tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output format (paths), parameter semantics, defaults, and scope. The annotations handle the read-only/destructive safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: 'class' matches native/custom classes, 'name' is a substring, 'path' is the scope root, 'recursive' and 'max' are explicitly described with the default for max. This is strong compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource (LIVE nodes in the RUNNING game), and query criteria (type and/or name), and it names the output (paths for runtime_* tools). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_tree or find_classes by emphasizing live runtime nodes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need live node paths for runtime_call/runtime_get_property/runtime_set_property. It also explains what 'class' and 'name' matching do, which helps the agent decide if this tool fits. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the use case is well scoped.

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