query_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It discloses the read-oriented nature ('search engine', 'pagination', 'projections') and the query language (logical conditions), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, nor does it describe return value structure or side effects. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core value proposition ('high-performance structured search engine') and then enumerates all key capabilities. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase contributes.

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?

The description covers all major dimensions: filter types, logical operators, pagination, and projections. However, it omits sorting (sortBy) and the compact flag's specific effect on token usage, which are defined in the schema. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, these small omissions leave minor gaps but overall the definition is quite complete.

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 covers 86% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping (e.g., 'bounds' mapping to min/max width/height, 'parent hierarchy' to parentId/artboardId, 'logical AND/OR/NOT' to the filter sub-object), but it does not enhance each individual parameter beyond the schema. Overall, it adds moderate interpretive value without extending detail.

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 it is a 'high-performance structured search engine' for querying canvas nodes, enumerating specific filter dimensions (type, name regex, text content, bounds, parent hierarchy) and operational features (logical AND/OR/NOT, pagination, projections). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_children (hierarchy) or find_nodes (likely basic 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention simpler search options (e.g., find_nodes) or spatial queries (query_spatial_relationships), nor does it state conditions for choosing this over others. The agent must infer from capabilities alone.

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