find_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only claim adds no new information. The description does add the return shape (hits + count) and the exact-match semantics, but it does not disclose finer behaviors like case sensitivity, result ordering, or how pattern interacts with name. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core information is front-loaded in the first sentence: operation, matching mode, return value, and read-only status. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but still compact and well organized.

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 search tool with three documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it explains purpose, return count, and exact/fuzzy behavior. Minor gaps are the absence of the pattern parameter in the description and the unspecified structure of a 'hit', but the schema covers the former and the return shape is stated at a useful level.

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 covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description reinforces exact=true behavior but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific operation: finding objects by exact or fuzzy name, and the return payload (hits list plus count). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_objects, count_objects, and get_object_info, which do not offer name-based substring search.

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 usage context: use this when you need name-based lookup, with exact=true for identical matches and default false for fuzzy contains. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as enumerating all objects with list_objects or counting with count_objects.

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