findObjectPath

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the object is not found, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The description is completely inadequate for safe tool invocation.

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 short (one sentence), which is concise but severely under-specifies. It lacks any structural elements like bullet points or examples. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence is a tautology, wasting the opportunity to provide useful information.

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 simple schema (1 param), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return value, error handling, and usage context. It does none of this. The tool is completely opaque, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly invoke or interpret results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool purpose. The parameter 'objectUrl' is already described in the schema as 'URL of the object to find path for', and the overall description does not enhance understanding.

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 'Find path for an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'findObjectPath'. It does not specify what kind of path (e.g., file system, object hierarchy, URL path) or how the path is determined. Among 133 sibling tools like 'findCollectionByUrl' and 'findDefinition', there is no differentiation, making it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or examples. The description gives no context about suitable scenarios or when to avoid it. This leaves the agent without decision-making cues.

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