preset_search_ambientcg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires network access, has rate limits, or returns results in a specific format. The description only states the basic function without any behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses bullet-like formatting for arguments. However, the Italian language may be redundant for an international AI, and the 'limit' parameter is omitted from the description. Overall, it is clear but slightly incomplete.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and two parameters but lacks details on return format, pagination, or network requirements. It mentions CC0 licensing in the purpose, which is helpful. However, it is not fully complete for operational use.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for two parameters (query, asset_type) by providing examples and listing possible values for asset_type. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained. The added context partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Cerca materiali/HDRI/modelli CC0 su ambientCG' which is Italian for 'Search materials/HDRI/models CC0 on ambientCG.' The verb 'search' and the resource 'ambientCG' are specific, and the scope includes different asset types. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like preset_search_polyhaven by specifying the source.

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 provides parameter usage (query and asset_type) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'ambientCG' implies the context, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use instructions are given. The sibling tools (e.g., preset_search_polyhaven) are listed, but the description does not differentiate them.

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