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 behavioral burden. It discloses a useful performance/scalability warning (unfiltered search scans the entire scene and returns hundreds), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe side effects or return format.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage constraint, then parameter details in a clear structure. It is appropriately sized and every sentence mostly earns its place, though the Args section includes an extraneous 'ctx' entry.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, filter parameters, and a performance warning. It is missing a description of the return value (e.g., list of node paths) and an explicit safety profile, which are relevant given the absence of structured metadata.

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. It provides examples for pattern ('box*'), node_type ('box', 'null'), context ('Sop', 'Object'), and the default for inside ('/'), which adds value. However, it also lists 'ctx' (MCP context), which is not a schema property, introducing potential confusion.

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?

States a specific verb 'Search for nodes' and the resource, plus the filter dimensions (name pattern, type, context). It is clearly a search tool, distinguishing it from list_children or get_node_info, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from those siblings.

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?

Gives explicit guidance to narrow the search using 'inside' and at least one filter, and warns that unfiltered root search returns hundreds of nodes. It does not mention when to prefer sibling tools like list_children, so no explicit alternatives are provided.

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