find_by_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (finding elements) but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any limitations such as scope (e.g., only current model or across all diagrams) or performance implications. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes relevant examples. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter expects. It doesn't mention the return format, but the output schema presumably covers that. For a simple search tool, this is complete enough, though a note about the scope of 'all elements' (e.g., current model vs. entire project) would be beneficial.

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 only defines 'type_name' as a string with no description, and coverage is 0%. The tool description compensates by providing concrete examples of valid values (Block, Requirement, FlowPort), which clarifies what type_name expects. It doesn't enumerate all possible types but gives enough guidance for an agent to understand the parameter's purpose.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('all elements matching a SysML v1 type name'), with specific examples like Block, Requirement, FlowPort. This distinguishes it from sibling find tools like find_by_name and find_by_qualified_name, which search by different criteria.

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 type-based search, which is distinct from name or qualified-name searches. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names. A short note on when to prefer this over search or find_by_name would improve it.

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