Find Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result size, scoping to active document, or behavior when no criteria are supplied, which is real context for a search tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness is a symptom of under-specification rather than admirable restraint.

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 9 parameters, nested color objects, two enums, and no output schema, the definition should say something about the returned shape (objects, ids, or full details) and how criteria combine. Neither is addressed, so the definition is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, including detailed tolerance and coordinate-system semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (search/find) and resource (objects) with the scoping notion of criteria-based lookup. It is clear on its own, but it offers no differentiation from siblings that also retrieve object collections such as get_groups, get_layers, or select_objects.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other listing/retrieval siblings, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of whether criteria are AND-combined or what happens with zero criteria. The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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