renderdoc_search_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by name pattern but does not describe key behaviors like whether the search is case-sensitive, if it returns partial matches, the format of results, potential rate limits, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly, with every part contributing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a search function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, result format, and usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is inadequate for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('pattern' and 'resource_type') with descriptions and an enum. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name pattern' and resource types, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, such as wildcard examples or default behavior details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Search for resources') and specifies the resource types ('textures, buffers, shaders') with a search method ('by name pattern'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'renderdoc_get_buffers' or 'renderdoc_get_textures', which might retrieve resources without searching by pattern, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'renderdoc_get_buffers' for direct retrieval or 'renderdoc_analyze_draw_call' for different contexts. It implies usage for searching by pattern but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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