find_object_by_field

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful context about unstable IDs, but it does not disclose behavior on multiple matches, exact-match semantics, or other runtime behavior. With an output schema present, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the rationale for using the tool is delivered right after, making it easy to scan.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with full schema documentation, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is not explaining how this generic endpoint-driven finder should be chosen over the many specialized search_* sibling tools.

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 clear descriptions for endpoint, field, and value. The description itself adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'specific field value', so it relies on the schema as expected.

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 states a clear action: find an object by a specific field value, and positions it as a field-based alternative to ID-based lookups. However, 'object' is generic and no sibling search tool is named, so it does not fully differentiate itself from the many search_* tools in the sibling list.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule: prefer this over IDs when you need a stable reference, because pfSense object IDs change after deletions. This is actionable and directly informs tool selection, though it does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to specialized search_* alternatives.

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