node_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds crucial facts: mandatory filter, AND semantics, and pagination. It could mention more about recursion depth or error handling, but the output schema covers return values, so this is solid.

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 extremely concise: four short sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a necessary constraint or behavior.

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's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: filters, mandatory filter, AND logic, and pagination. Minor omissions like recursion depth or sorting order do not significantly hinder use.

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 100% with each parameter described individually. The description adds cross-parameter semantics: at least one filter must be provided and filters AND together, which is not evident from the schema alone. It does not mention session_id, but the schema covers that.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('nodes in the scene tree'), plus search criteria (by name, type, or group). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like scene_get_hierarchy (which gets hierarchy) and node_get_properties (which gets properties).

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?

It provides explicit usage constraints: at least one filter must be provided, filters combine with AND, and pagination is used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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