inventory_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating excluded side effects ('Does not rez, purchase or upload anything') and disclosing recursive traversal and metadata return, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences: the primary action is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows. Every clause carries information with no 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?

There is no output schema, but the description notes the return ('item metadata'), which is helpful. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the total absence of parameter guidance leaves notable gaps for correct invocation.

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% across four parameters (folder_id, name, limit, asset_type), and the description explains none of them. With a name like 'folder_id' the target folder is implied, but the meaning of 'name,' what 'limit' caps, and valid 'asset_type' values are undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search a specific inventory folder recursively') plus the return shape ('item metadata'). It is clearly distinguishable from viewer/UI siblings, though there are no other inventory tools to differentiate against.

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 implies use ('search a specific inventory folder recursively') and scopes effort via 'specific folder,' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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