Find Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds value by disclosing result ordering (exact, prefix, then substring) and case-insensitive matching. These are meaningful behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 with no filler. The core lookup behavior is first, the workflow use is second, and the ordering/case details close it out efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides everything needed: what to search, why to use it, and how results are ordered. No critical gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%: both query and limit are documented there, including the full set of query forms (part of a name, full name, IP address). The description mostly restates the query semantics rather than adding new parameter-level detail.

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: 'Find nodes' by partial name, full name, or IP address. The phrase 'resolve an ambiguous device name before calling other tools' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes or get_node.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to resolve ambiguous node names before invoking other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended placement in a workflow is clear.

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