Node Find

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 does mention that at least one filter is required, filters AND together, and results are paginated, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, though 'find' implies read-only. The description covers the most important constraints but could add explicit safety context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and the second adds essential constraints, front-loading the most important information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filter combination, requirement of at least one filter, and pagination. It does not explain the output format, but the output schema handles that. It could mention session handling or defaults, but those are in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that filters AND together and that at least one filter must be provided, which are not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand how to combine the name, type, and group parameters correctly.

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 it finds nodes in the scene tree by name, type, or group, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like scene_get_hierarchy that retrieve the whole tree. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous and covers the core functionality.

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 implies usage for searching nodes but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like scene_get_hierarchy or node_get_properties. It mentions filtering and pagination, which hints at its role, but there is no direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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