search_polyhaven_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the parameters and states the return type ('a list of matching assets with basic information'), but omits details like pagination, authentication, rate limits, or how filtering criteria interact. It does disclose that user_prompt is for telemetry, which adds slight 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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list and a one-line return statement. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the parameters, return type, and telemetry purpose. It could be more specific about output fields or filtering behavior, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates by listing and explaining all three parameters: asset_type with allowed values, categories as comma-separated, and user_prompt for telemetry. This goes beyond the schema's bare defaults and provides useful semantics.

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 purpose: 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Polyhaven assets'), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sketchfab_models.

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 implies usage for searching Polyhaven assets but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. No guidance is given for when to use search_polyhaven_assets over search_sketchfab_models or other asset-related tools.

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