search_related_objects

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that matching is based on object names containing a pattern and describes the return dictionary structure. However, it does not disclose whether matching is case-sensitive, substring-based vs regex, whether it searches only names or also values, or whether there are any limits on scope or result size.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then an explanatory sentence, followed by Args and Returns sections. The opening two sentences are slightly redundant ('Search for...' and 'Finds all objects...'), but overall every section earns its place without bloated filler.

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 tool is relatively simple and has only two parameters, the description provides the essentials: what it searches, what inputs it takes, and what the return dictionary contains. It falls short on pattern-matching semantics, case sensitivity, and routing the agent away from overlapping sibling tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It defines model_id as 'the model_id of the EnergyPlus model' and search_pattern as 'Pattern to search for' with a concrete example ('ROOM_1_FLR_3'). This provides enough meaning for both parameters, though model_id's description is still thin and no format or required-prefix details are given.

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 that the tool searches the epJSON model for objects whose names contain a given pattern, with an explicit resource (epJSON model) and action (search/find). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_epjson_objects, which likely performs a similar name-based search.

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 gives a helpful use case: 'useful for analyzing all components related to a particular zone, system, or equipment.' However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_epjson_objects or list_objects_by_type, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions that would make a different sibling more appropriate.

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