search_browser_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains case-insensitive substring matching, the max_results limit, and the user_prompt telemetry parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects, though 'search' implies non-mutating 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 opens with a concise, front-loaded purpose sentence, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, and matching behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or what a result item looks like, which would be useful for downstream use. Still, the core invocation context is well-covered.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query (case-insensitive substring), category_type (with possible values and reference to get_browser_tree), max_results (default 25), and user_prompt (telemetry). It adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the Ableton browser for items whose name contains a query string.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, and the substring matching criterion distinguishes it from related browser navigation tools like get_browser_tree and get_browser_items_at_path.

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 gives parameter context (e.g., category_type can be 'all' or a specific category from get_browser_tree) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the search semantics, but there are no when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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