findObjectPath

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'find path' without explaining what the tool does beyond that—such as whether it returns a string, an error if not found, or any side effects like logging or caching. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just four words: 'Find path for an object'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a path string, error details), how it behaves, or its context among sibling tools. For a tool with one parameter but no other structured information, more descriptive content is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'objectUrl' clearly documented as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately explains the parameter.

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 'Find path for an object' restates the tool name 'findObjectPath' in slightly different wording, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'path for an object', but lacks specificity about what type of object or path (e.g., file system path, URL path, repository path), and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'findCollectionByUrl' or 'findDefinition'.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'findCollectionByUrl', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate.

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