ae_search

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 reveals that matching is by name substring but says nothing about return format, sorting, pagination, side effects, or behavior when the limit is reached. The read-only nature is only inferred from the word 'search'.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage preference is stated economically. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits parameter semantics for limit and include_layers, and does not explain default behavior or edge cases. For a simple search tool, this is still a notable gap.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It clarifies that the query targets names of project items and layers, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Case-insensitive substring', but limit and include_layers remain completely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource scope ('project items and layers by name substring'). It also draws a contrast with listing everything, which distinguishes it from broader retrieval tools like ae_list_compositions or ae_get_composition.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: prefer it over listing everything in large projects. It does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is actionable enough for an agent to decide.

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