Search objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the search is over a 'cached' catalog, implying non-destructive behavior and potential staleness, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The information is adequate for understanding it is a read-only search.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the search type, suggesting usage, and listing return fields. No extraneous words or redundancy. Perfectly concise for its content.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values and the search scope. It mentions caching and name-based search. However, it does not clarify whether the search applies to all fields or only displayName, or discuss pagination beyond the limit parameter. Still sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (query, limit, typeFilter). The only extra information pertains to return fields, not parameter usage.

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 performs fuzzy/substring search over a cached object catalog, specifies that it finds equipment, sensors, or processes by name, and lists the returned fields (elementId, displayName, type, parent path). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_object (exact lookup) or list_root_objects (top-level listing).

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 includes 'Use this to find equipment, sensors, or processes by name,' which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., use get_object for exact ID lookup). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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