find_object_by_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about ID instability and why field-based lookup is preferable, which is beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose edge cases like multiple matches, but given the output schema exists, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise without losing important guidance.

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 three well-described parameters and an output schema. The description adds the key context about when to use it. It doesn't explain what happens if no match is found or if multiple matches exist, but the output schema likely conveys return shape. The description is complete enough for this complexity level.

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 (field, value, endpoint) already described. The description adds only marginal context by saying 'specific field value' and 'stable reference,' but it doesn't introduce new parameter semantics or syntax beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Find an object by a specific field value.' It also differentiates from the many search_* siblings by emphasizing 'safer than using IDs' and its generic applicability across endpoints. This gives a specific verb, resource, and unique positioning.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this instead of IDs when you need a stable reference to an object, since pfSense object IDs change after deletions.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives and explains the underlying rationale, which is strong usage guidance.

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