lop_prim_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses NO_UNDO semantics and the server-side response cap (apply_response_cap), which are useful beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, permissions required, or any pagination/error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence providing meaningful information. No wasted words.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description covers core behavior (match type, fallback, cap) but omits parameter details, result format, and edge cases. It is adequate for basic use but lacks complete operational context for an agent needing to set max_depth or understand ctx/node_path.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for name (substring) and type_name (exact match), and implies cap applies to max_prims, but it leaves ctx, node_path, max_depth, and max_prims mostly undocumented. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 clearly specifies a verb ('search') and resource ('prim') with match criteria ('name substring / type_name exact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_usd_prims and lop_prim_get.

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 explicitly states when both search criteria are omitted, the tool behaves equivalently to list_usd_prims (subject to cap), providing clear fallback usage context. It does not discuss exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, but the primary usage scenario is clear.

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