find

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses case-insensitivity, mm units, the within-vs-overlaps distinction, and top_level_only nesting behavior. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or whether max_results truncates silently, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Find objects by...' followed by a compact enumeration of filters, then a short second sentence for top_level_only. It is dense but every clause earns its place; only the trailing sentence is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameters are nearly all explained despite 0% schema coverage. The remaining gap is the absence of any read-only/permission context for a 9-parameter query tool, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description compensates by explaining 8 of them with real semantics (text is a case-insensitive substring, tag examples, style syntax example, region format with within/overlaps meaning, top_level_only effect). Only max_results is left unmentioned, but its schema default (60) covers it, so this is strong compensation.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Find') and resource ('objects') and enumerates the searchable dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like selection, inspect, or structure. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling or scope boundary, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrase 'by any combination of' implies the filters are combinable, and the within/overlaps and top_level_only notes hint at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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