bdesign_asset_query

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: results use cursor pagination, distinctness matters, and organization changes invalidate the cursor.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pagination model, then scope semantics, then cursor invalidation. There is no filler and each sentence carries useful information.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers pagination, scope, and cursor invalidation but omits return shape and several parameter meanings. It is minimally adequate but not complete enough to fully guide 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `scope`, `folderId=null`, and `cursor` invalidation well, but says nothing about `limit`, `query`, or `projectId`, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search distinct project Assets', and adds cursor pagination and scope semantics. It is distinguishable from sibling asset list/get/import tools, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative.

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 clarifies what `scope=current` with `folderId=null` means and that `project` searches the entire project, which implies usage boundaries. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus `bdesign_asset_list` or `bdesign_asset_get`, leaving alternatives unaddressed.

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