find_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses case-insensitivity and diacritics handling, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention ranking criteria, pagination, or any side effects, slightly reducing transparency.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Information is densed and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values. 'Returns ranked candidates' is vague; lacks details on candidate structure (e.g., IDs, types). The tool is not complex but missing output context reduces completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining case-insensitivity and ranked results beyond schema. For 'kinds' and 'limit', schema provides basics; description does not add further, but overall meaningful addition.

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 finds devices, rooms, or scenes by name, with specific behavioral details (case-insensitive, ignores diacritics, returns ranked candidates). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'resolve_by_name' by focusing on search rather than exact resolution.

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 when to use (name-based search) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'resolve_by_name' or other search methods. No exclusions or context for choosing among siblings.

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