search_objects

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and does not mention side effects, read-only nature, return format, pagination (despite a limit parameter), or behavior when no matches are found. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no other metadata.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point, front-loading the purpose and criteria. There is no wasted words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description must provide comprehensive context. It only covers the basic purpose, omitting return value structure, parameter specifics (especially limit and session_id), and any operational context like session requirements. For a tool with five parameters, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It mentions name, title, and type as matching criteria, which covers three of five parameters, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'session_id'. Even for the mentioned parameters, it lacks detail on format or semantics. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 the action (find) and resource (UI objects), and specifies the matching criteria (name, title, type). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_object by implying a bulk search ('all'), but does not explicitly contrast them. The verb and resource are specific, avoiding tautology.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_object, wait_object, or get_object, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., active session). The only implicit clue is the tool name 'search_objects', which is insufficient.

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