search_resources

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful quirk (underscores don't match, search a single word), but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, pagination behavior for limit (default 50), or how filtering interacts with the query string.

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?

Front-loads the purpose sentence, then supplies query syntax examples with no filler. Slightly redundant framing around 'shelf syntax' for a tool named search_resources, but every sentence carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the query-format gotcha is a real addition. However, for a four-parameter, zero-coverage search tool with no annotations, the absence of filter/limit semantics and sibling routing leaves notable gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It explains query thoroughly with concrete syntax examples ('u:generator', 'p:starter_assets'), but says nothing about usage, resource_type, or limit, leaving three of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Painter resources) plus the return shape (identifiers, type, category, usages). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_project_resources or list_shelves, leaving the agent to infer which retrieval tool to pick.

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 spends its effort on how to write the query, not on when to use this tool versus list_shelves, list_project_resources, or find_layers. Usage is implied by the syntax examples but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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