find_nodes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world), so the description earns credit for the extra operational context: maxVisited bounds the amount of work performed, and file edits can shift offsets, warning the agent that pagination state is unstable. That is genuinely useful disclosure a caller could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It is efficient, though the pagination sentence trades accuracy for brevity by citing the wrong parameter name.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It omits the meaning of query/type/limit/pageId and does not describe result shape, total counts, or how many nodes a page holds, leaving the agent unable to call it precisely.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load, yet it only mentions maxVisited and refers to a non-existent 'nextOffset'. The purpose of query, type, limit, offset, and pageId is left entirely unexplained, and one parameter name given is wrong.

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 and resource ('Search names and text') and scopes it to 'one page', which distinguishes it from document-wide tools like get_document. It is clear enough to act on, but it never names the closest siblings (get_node, find-style alternatives) or clarifies what a 'node' search returns.

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 only usage instruction is 'Use nextOffset for pagination', but nextOffset does not exist in the schema (the parameter is 'offset'), so the guidance actively misleads. There is no statement of when to reach for find_nodes versus get_node or get_document, and no exclusions.

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