find_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. However, the verb 'find' strongly implies a non-destructive query, and no unexpected behaviors are hinted at. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides concrete examples. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (3 simple parameters, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It does not explain return format or pagination, but for a simple search tool, the context is sufficient. The many siblings are differentiated by the search-by-type/name focus.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (name: partial match, type: FRAME/TEXT/COMPONENT/INSTANCE, filePath: path to file). The description adds no further semantic detail beyond reiterating 'by type or name.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 action ('Find nodes') and the resource ('in the document by type or name'), with explicit examples of what can be located (components, frames, text elements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_by_id or list_nodes_with_fills, which have different search criteria.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('locating specific components, frames, or text elements') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. Given the large sibling list, the context helps an agent decide, but exclusions are missing.

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