find_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the search covers vanilla and every loaded mod, and that category is an optional path filter. It does not mention edge cases, output structure, or error behavior, but given the presence of an output schema, the description provides moderate 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences deliver the core purpose and scope, followed by a brief parameter note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, scope, object types, and the category parameter. Missing sibling differentiation and explicit error/return behavior slightly reduce completeness, but the tool is likely straightforward enough that current coverage suffices.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'category' with examples ('common/religions' or 'events') and implies that 'name' refers to the named object from the first sentence. This is helpful but not exhaustive; the name parameter lacks an explicit format or example.

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 where a named game object is defined' and provides concrete examples (religion, building, scripted effect, event). It also specifies scope ('searches vanilla and every loaded mod'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_definitions or find_usages.

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?

Usage is implied: you would use this tool when you need to locate the definition file for a game object. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over search_definitions or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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