Search shape text

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a non-mutating operation. The description reinforces this by using 'Find' rather than any modifying verb. It does not mention return format or errors, but the read-only nature is sufficiently disclosed through the annotation and wording.

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—one clear sentence followed by a minimal parameter list. No redundant information or filler is present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the core search behavior and parameter semantics, and an output schema is present to define the return shape. It does not explicitly mention error scenarios or result ordering, but given the output schema and simple nature of the search, it is adequately complete.

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?

Although the schema itself has no parameter descriptions, the prose description explicitly explains all three parameters: query (substring), document (file name or 1-based index, optional), and match_case (case-sensitive toggle). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Find'), resource ('shapes'), and specific filter ('text contains a substring, across every page'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like visio_list_shapes or visio_replace_text.

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 makes the intended use case evident—searching for shapes by text content—and the optional parameters for document and case sensitivity are briefly explained. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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