search_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it covers little beyond the return payload. It does not say whether matching is case-sensitive, what scope 'root' applies, or what happens when matches exceed max_results (default 40) — e.g., truncation vs error. For a search tool whose default limit is 40, silent truncation behavior is exactly what an agent needs to know.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and filters, then the return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Missing root scoping, result-limit/truncation behavior, and match-case semantics are material gaps an agent cannot resolve from any other field.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it only explains two of four. 'Query' is clarified as a name substring and 'class_name' as an exact match, which is genuinely valuable; however 'root' (default 'game') and 'max_results' (default 40) are never mentioned and remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (instances) plus the matching modes: name substring and/or exact class name. It also discloses the return shape (paths with class), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_instance (single known path) and get_tree. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a substring query suggests it is the tool for when the exact path is unknown, and 'and/or' hints that query and class_name combine as filters. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_instance or get_tree as alternatives.

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