studio_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the search action. It does not disclose whether the search is recursive, whether it is read-only, how results are returned, or what pattern/query matching rules apply.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly defines the tool with no filler. The examples efficiently convey the range of supported search criteria.

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?

The schema fills in parameter defaults and constraints, making a basic call possible. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks detail about return shape, recursion behavior, and filter combination semantics, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema already documents all seven parameters with individual descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a useful high-level grouping of criteria but no syntax, dependency, or matching details beyond the schema.

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 action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Instances in the DataModel'), and enumerates meaningful search dimensions (name pattern, ClassName, tag, attribute values). This scope clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on scripts, code, or assets.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives such as script_search or search_asset are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the description and schema, but the agent must infer routing among the many sibling search-like tools.

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