wb_assets_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read operation and the spawnable-list provenance is useful context, but nothing is said about result ordering, pagination via limit, whether missing queries return empty results, or how large the catalog is. For a search over a game asset database, this leaves the agent guessing on several operational facts.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by how to use the output. No padding, though the '#IDs' token is jargon that a first-time reader must infer means identifiers.

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?

With seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to do much more than it does. It never clarifies return shape (only that #IDs appear), pagination behavior, or how the catalog relates to the build step that produces it.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The phrase 'cp77wb asset catalog' faintly implies that 'database' selects a catalog, but query, module, variant, category, extension, and limit receive no semantic guidance anywhere in the definition.

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 verb and resource: 'Search a cp77wb asset catalog built from World Builder's real spawnable lists.' That is enough to distinguish it from build/info siblings like wb_assets_build or wb_assets_info, though it never names those siblings explicitly to confirm the boundary.

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?

It gives downstream workflow guidance ('Use returned #IDs for deterministic spawning'), which implicitly tells the agent this is the discovery step before wb_spawn_asset or wb_asset_pool_spawn. But there is no when-not guidance, no mention of how it differs from wb_semantic_search, and no indication of which catalog/database to query.

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