find_nodes_in_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation and scope ('edited scene', 'belongs to a group') but does not disclose return format, traversal behavior (e.g., recursive vs. direct children), or edge cases like groups on instanced 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, straightforward sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and object, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: it finds nodes in a group within the edited scene. The return value is implicitly 'every node' matching the condition, which is reasonably complete, though it doesn't specify the node representation (e.g., paths vs. IDs).

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 schema has a single required string parameter 'group' with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that this parameter refers to the group name nodes must belong to, which adds essential meaning. However, it does not provide format details such as case sensitivity or group path syntax.

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 a specific action ('Find every node') and the resource ('in the edited scene that belongs to a group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_nodes_by_type and find_nodes_by_script by focusing on group membership.

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 tool is used when you need to locate all nodes in a group within the current scene, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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