Search the organization's asset library (videos and images uploaded for content production) by name, description or tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of assets to return (max 50) | |
| query | No | Free-text search over name, description and tags. Empty = most recent assets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world profile are known. The description adds useful scope context (organization asset library, content-production media types), but it does not disclose return ordering, result shape, or the empty-query behavior; those details live only in the schema. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
One focused sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the searchable fields and asset scope. Every phrase earns its place; the parenthetical is genuinely useful context rather than filler.
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 low-complexity, read-only search tool with two optional parameters fully covered by the schema and safe annotations, the definition is largely complete. Since there is no output schema, explicitly stating that the tool returns matching asset records would have been slightly more complete, but the tool name and 'Search' semantics make that inferable.
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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including limits, defaults, and the empty-query behavior. The description's mention of name/description/tags aligns with the query parameter's documented free-text semantics, but it adds no syntax, formatting, or additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a defined resource ('organization's asset library'), and concrete search dimensions ('by name, description or tags'), while clarifying the asset types as videos/images uploaded for content production. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset_download_url or update_asset, which are different operations on the same domain.
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 clearly establishes the search use case: an agent should call this tool when needing to find assets by metadata text, not download or modify them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., 'use get_asset_download_url to fetch a known asset'), so it stops short of a top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct target resource/action, and the descriptions are unusually explicit about differences (e.g., 'Distinct from the watchlist', 'Separate list from list_tags'). A few pairs are still easy to confuse without careful reading: delete_folder vs delete_folders differ only by singular/plural, and the three download-URL tools (get_post_download_url, get_asset_download_url, get_my_account_post_download_url) plus the category/tag families require attention to pick correctly.
The snake_case verb_noun pattern is followed consistently throughout (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, set_*, tag_*). Minor deviations: archive_folder and archive_my_accounts also perform restore despite their names, delete_folder/delete_folders split one operation by cardinality, and tag_posts/tag_my_account use a different verb style than the set_* family for metadata mutations.
At 56 tools, this far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' even though the server spans multiple subdomains (watchlist, analysis, assignments, folders, my accounts, assets, Drive, categories/tags). Obvious consolidation candidates exist — delete_folder/delete_folders, the three download-URL getters, and the parallel list_my_account_* listers — and the sheer surface is heavy for an agent to navigate.
Core workflows are thoroughly covered with no dead ends: watchlist → analyze → assign → folder → track → approve has full lifecycle support, including reversible archive vs permanent delete choices. Minor gaps exist but are work-aroundable: no create/update for my accounts or models (app-side OAuth/admin only), no way to delete a viral post or a post note, and asset upload only happens in the app.
