I’m not sure whether you are asking a technical question, or a design question, or a bit of both.
As to the technical question, it’s not hard to define a kind of thing that is a sort of second-class citizen object. For instance, I usually define kinds for “decorations”, “distant things”, and “absent things”. For instance:
A decoration is a kind of thing. It is scenery. The description of a decoration
is usually "[The noun] is not important." Instead of doing anything other than
examining with a decoration, say "You can't do anything useful with [the noun]."
It’s then pretty easy to create objects which will deliver a “clear message” (don’t waste time on me), without annoyingly denying their very existence.
Lab is a room. "There's a mass of equipment stored here: test tubes,
flasks, rubber tubing, old bunsen burners. Fortunately you don't need to worry about that.
The lab equipment is decoration in Lab. Understand "test tube/tubes", "flask",
"flasks", "rubber", "tubing", "tubes", "bunsen burner/burners", "stored" as the lab equipment.
If, in a particular case, you want to allow some sort of short description, you can give it.
Lab is a room. "There's a mass of equipment stored here: test tubes, flasks,
rubber tubing, old bunsen burners. Fortunately you don't need to worry about that.
The lab equipment is decoration in Lab. The description is "There's so much
equipment here, you could spend all day looking at it: better focus on the problem
at hand." Understand "test tube/tubes", "flask", "flasks", "rubber", "tubing", "tubes",
"bunsen burner/burners", "stored" as the lab equipment.
And, indeed, if you need in some particular case to allow for some particularly obvious action, you can do that too:
Instead of searching the lab equipment, say "Really, you would not know where to start."
That’s a reasonably efficient way of taking care of the technical issue. But it doesn’t cover your design question. The key there, I think, is consistency. Is your game one in which the player needs to be in the habit of “kicking the tyres” on the objects that seem to be mentioned in room descriptions in order to progress. If so, you need to make sure you fairly consistently reward such exploration–and generically pre-programmed responses don’t. If, as a player, I try examining the minuscule dots of land, and the branches, and the mountains, and I’m told not to worry, I may never look at those trees. These things send subtle but unmistakeable signals to the players about how you expect them to play, and you owe it to the player to be consistent.
Anyway, tbh, it’s lazy. You are avoiding writing descriptions, but the price is that anyone who plays your game is going to waste their time! And the message that sends is “I don’t care enough to bother.”
In the example you give, it’s not difficult. You really have only a few objects:
- The trees. The trunks, branches, twigs etc are all part of them, and simply redirect to examining the trees. A big part of managing this complexity is copious use of “Understand … as” to cope with different words which should really all go to the same object. Searching will need to redirect to examining as well.
- The wind, which is not there to examined, but needs to be capable of being listened to.
- The mountains and sea. That can quite reasonably default to one or two general descriptions of a “view”, which will need to be gated to avoid inappropriate actions (basically anything other than examining). The trick here is to make sure that when examined you /don’t/ mention further specific objects, which /subtly/ signals “You done good to look at me, but there’s no more to see.” If you do mention further specific objects, make them be understood as the general view, which also sends the same signal. You can often use a backdrop for this sort of thing, which means you can re-use your work in a variety of different locations.
- The minuscule dots. These seem salient, and need therefore to be separately dealt with. If they are /not/ important enough to get a unique description, then they shouldn’t be mentioned at all. As it is, they stand out.
That is really, then three or four objects at most. It’s not a big deal. If that doesn’t work for you, you really need to reconsider your approach to descriptions, making them more generic and calling out objects which are important unmistakeably, rather than weaving them in as you are. But get used to the idea that with any IF you are going to spend a lot of time writing responses which most players won’t see!