findObjectPath

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action ('Find path') without any details on behavior, such as whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the object isn't found, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 extremely concise with just four words, which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary details to understand the tool's purpose and usage. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 complexity (inferred from sibling tools like object management), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'path' output entails (e.g., a string, structured data) or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but unclear functionality among many siblings, more detail is needed to make it usable, resulting in a low score.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'objectUrl' documented as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 'Find path for an object' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'findObjectPath'. It lacks specificity about what 'path' means (e.g., file path, URL path, object hierarchy) and what type of 'object' is involved. While it includes a verb ('Find') and resource ('object'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'searchObject' or 'objectStructure', making it vague and minimally informative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for locating objects in a repository, file system, or database. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition', there's no indication of how this tool differs, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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