scan_text_nodes

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 does disclose the return shape (a columnar fields/rows table), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what 'chunking' does, and what constitutes a match.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the output format second. Nothing is padded, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps rather than compensating for them.

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 5-parameter tool with 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains only the return table and nothing about parameters, usage, or behavior. It is well short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only 40%: verbose and maxChars are documented in the schema, but offset, chunkSize, and rootNodeId have no description anywhere. The description text adds nothing about any parameter, leaving three of five undocumented in both places.

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?

It names a specific verb (scan) and resource (text nodes) and adds 'basic chunking support', but it never states what the scan is looking for — no pattern, predicate, or match criterion is given, so 'Matches are returned' is left undefined. It is distinguishable from siblings like scan_nodes_by_types only by the 'text' resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a required rootNodeId or current selection), and no mention of alternatives such as find_nodes, scan_nodes_by_types, or find_and_replace_text. The agent must guess the intended context.

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