search_capsule_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it does not modify repositories, which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior (though limit parameter suggests), or any side effects beyond non-modification. It is minimal.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the main action and scope. It briefly notes the non-modification aspect, adding value without fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with zero schema description, and an output schema exists, the description should provide more context on how parameters influence the search and what the output represents. It only mentions the asset types and non-modification, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, meaning the schema does not describe the parameters. The description mentions 'installed Capsule and NodeTemplate assets' but does not explain how 'query', 'category', 'node_space', or 'limit' affect the search. The limit parameter is inferred as a limit on results, but not stated. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('installed Capsule and NodeTemplate assets'), and clarifies it does not modify repositories. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'search_scene_node_assets', though the resource type is different. This is clear but could be more precise.

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 phrase 'without modifying repositories' implies a read-only usage contextainer, and the tool name suggests it is for searching assets, distinct from modification tools like 'add_primitive' or 'modify_object'. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor alternatives are mentioned.

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