searchObject

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. 'Search for objects' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup or a complex search, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for not providing enough substance to be truly helpful.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'objects' refer to in this context, how results are returned, or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and usage.

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 clear documentation for 'query', 'objType', and 'max'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid queries or object types. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'searchObject' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what types of objects are being searched, what system or context this operates in, or how it differs from other search-related tools like 'findObjectPath' or 'findDefinition' among the siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might involve searching or finding objects (e.g., 'findObjectPath', 'findDefinition'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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