Find instances

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results include full path and class, optional property values, a truncation flag, and the requirement for an active connection. Return-shape detail is valuable given there is no output schema; only pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action and the highest-value detail (selector examples) front-loaded. Every sentence carries information, though the selector examples and the schema's selector description overlap slightly.

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?

For a seven-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what it does, how to express queries, what comes back (path, class, optional properties, truncation), and the connection prerequisite. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further context.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema, including the operator list and limits. The description adds concrete selector examples (Model > Part[Anchored=false], TextButton#Play) that aid construction, but restates the operator/syntax information already present in the selector schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search the instance tree") and immediately clarifies it is a filtered search rather than a tree dump, which separates it from get_hierarchy and inspect_instance. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explains the two usage modes (selector syntax vs. the simple name/class_name filters) and states the prerequisite "Requires the connected state." However it never says when to prefer this over get_hierarchy, inspect_instance, or semantic_search, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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