find_nearby_nodes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses several behaviors: matching Node2D and Node3D, accepting both a position and a node path, using world units, and sorting by distance ascending. However, it does not mention behavior when no nodes are found, whether the supplied node is included, or any performance considerations for large scenes.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List Node2D/Node3D nodes within a radius') and adds value with 'in world units' and 'nearest first'. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a decent high-level overview but lacks coverage of filtering and result-limiting parameters. It does not explain the use of type_filter or group_filter, which are important for narrowing the search, and does not mention whether the result includes the node at the query position or how many results will be returned by default.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to clarify parameters. It does explain that 'radius' is in world units and that 'position' can be a node or coordinate object. Yet it provides no meaning for 'max_results', 'type_filter', or 'group_filter', which are present in the schema and have no explanatory text. This leaves a significant portion of the parameter surface undefined.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and concrete resources ('Node2D/Node3D nodes'), and clearly defines the spatial scope ('within a radius in world units'), sorting ('nearest first'), and input flexibility ('position or node'). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_nodes_by_type or find_nodes_in_group, which are non-spatial lookups.

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 implies the usage scenario: you need to find nodes near a given point or node. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer this over other search tools like find_nodes_by_type or find_nodes_in_group. No 'use this instead' guidance is present.

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