find_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Finds nodes in scene' and reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, return format, pagination, error behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent is left completely uninformed about how the tool behaves beyond the bare verb.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical information and does not front-load any useful distinctions. This is similar to the 'Process' calibration example where brevity is actually a deficiency.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to provide any context about the purpose, parameters, return values, or edge cases. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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 explain the meaning and usage of the three parameters (scene_path, type_filter, name_pattern). It does not mention any of them. The agent cannot know what values to pass, how filters work, or the format of scene_path. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 clear verb ('Finds') and resource ('nodes in scene'), which prevents it from being a pure tautology. However, it is vague: it doesn't specify what kind of nodes, what 'find' means (search by criteria, traversal, etc.), or how it differs from sibling tools like inspect_scene_tree or get_node_properties. The purpose is clear enough to understand the basic action but lacks specificity to distinguish it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools such as inspect_scene_tree or get_node_properties. An agent has no information to decide whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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