find_error_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and the root_path argument, but does not explain whether the search is recursive, whether the root itself is included, what the return format is (e.g., list of paths), or if there are side effects. This is minimal for a search tool.

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 concise and directly front-loaded with the primary action. The Args section is clearly delineated and adds no fluff. Every sentence earns its place, though the brevity sacrifices useful detail.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value structure (e.g., paths, names, error types), which is critical for an agent to use the result. It also omits whether the search is recursive or how warnings are differentiated from errors. More context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides a brief explanation: 'root_path: Root node path to search from.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default, clarifying what the parameter does. However, it is minimal and does not discuss optionality or expected format nuances.

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 purpose: 'Find all nodes with errors or warnings in the scene.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_node_errors_detailed or find_nodes, but the intent is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_errors_detailed or find_nodes. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness based solely on the tool's name and generic description.

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