find_object

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

The description mentions the primary behavior (resolving and returning information) but does not disclose any side effects, error cases, permissions required, or other behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility but only partially covers 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to read, containing exactly the essential information without fluff.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes an object reference, what format the path should take, or what the returned name, class, and address look like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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?

The only parameter 'path' has no description and the schema coverage is 0%. The word 'path' is generic and ambiguous; the description does not explain what kind of path or object reference it expects, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely unclear.

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 resolves an object reference and returns its full name, class, and address, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_functions' or 'get_property'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites for using it. It simply states what it does without context.

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