map_find_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the return fields ('id, name, type, ip, x, y for each match') but does not describe behavior when no filters are provided, result limits, or the read-only nature (though implied by 'search'). The schema descriptions provide matching behavior, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then state the return shape and the usage guidance. No redundant or filler 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of return fields is helpful. However, it does not clarify behavior with zero parameters, differentiate from sibling `map_search`, or mention any result limits. These gaps make it adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already documented (e.g., exact match for IP, substring case-insensitive for name). The description merely restates the parameter categories without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Search nodes by name, IP, type, or free-text query' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the return fields and the intended use case ('locate a node before updating it'), which distinguishes it from update/delete operations.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to locate a node before updating it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended pre-update lookup scenario is clear.

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