find_nodes

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it operates on LIVE nodes only, explains class matching nuances (native classes + custom class_name vs is_class), and specifies name substring matching, path scoping, and recursion. No contradictions 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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists parameter details. Every sentence adds value, 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?

Given 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output (paths) and how to use them, plus default values and class matching nuance. It could mention the case of no matches, but overall it's thorough enough for correct tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It provides semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: class matches native and custom classes, name is substring, path scopes with default, recursive=true, max cap with default 100. This adds significant value beyond parameter names.

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 LIVE nodes in the RUNNING game by type and/or name, returning their paths for use with other runtime tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_classes and describe_object by focusing on node discovery in the runtime context.

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 explains the return value's purpose (feeding into runtime_call etc.) and provides details on class matching and defaults. It implies usage scenarios but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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