find_gameobjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover those. The description adds that it searches by multiple criteria, which is useful but does not disclose behavioral details like wildcard support, pagination (maxResults), or whether inactive objects are included by default (these are in schema but not description). With annotations, the bar is lower, and the description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resources. Every part is essential, no fluff or 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?

Given the existence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete. It clearly conveys the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly mention that results are returned as a list or how maxResults affects pagination, though these could be inferred from the schema. Slight room for improvement, but overall adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only lists the parameter categories (name pattern, tag, layer, component type) without adding new meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'finds', the resource 'GameObjects', and the filtering criteria (name pattern, tag, layer, or component type). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_gameobject' or 'select_gameobject' by focusing on search/filtering.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_gameobject' instead), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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