find_nodes_by_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions that nodes are live and in the running game, but does not disclose return format, behavior when no nodes match, whether the game needs to be running, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a no-annotations tool.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the specific search criterion. It is concise, with no redundant words or 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter information, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not specify what the tool returns, how the optional 'properties' parameter behaves, or any constraints on use. The description is too minimal to be considered 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?

Schema coverage is 0% since parameter descriptions are absent. The description explains that 'script' is a substring but does not explain the 'properties' parameter at all. The array of strings likely specifies which properties to return or filter, but the description omits this, leaving the optional parameter 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 clearly states the action (find), the target (live nodes in running game), and the specific criterion (script path contains substring). This differentiates it naturally from sibling tools like find_nodes_by_type and find_nodes_in_group.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, and there is no reference to sibling tools like find_nodes_by_type or find_script_references.

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