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. The description 'Find path for an object' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it's a read-only lookup, if it has side effects, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal action implied by 'Find'.

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 at just four words ('Find path for an object'), with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it meets the criteria for conciseness by being brief and to the point without redundancy.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. While the single parameter is well-documented in the schema, the description fails to explain what 'path' means in this context, what format the result will be in, or any behavioral context. For a tool that presumably returns some path information, the description should provide more context about the operation's purpose and output.

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' clearly documented as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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' without adding meaningful clarification. It lacks specificity about what type of path is being found (e.g., file system path, URL path, object hierarchy path) or what 'object' refers to in this context. While it includes a verb ('Find') and resource ('object'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings or provide concrete purpose.

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 for usage, or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition' which might be related). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what problems it solves, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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