Find Items By Media Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the substring ('contains') matching semantics, which is useful but modest; it says nothing about case sensitivity, scope of the search, or result volume limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the matching criterion is stated immediately after the verb and resource.

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 need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a simple lookup tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of routing guidance among the many sibling find/search tools keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single path_search parameter ('Partial file path to search for'), so baseline is 3. The description's 'contains' phrasing reinforces substring matching, but adds no syntax, casing, or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Find) and resource (project items) plus the exact matching criterion (media path contains search string). An agent can distinguish this from the similarly named find_project_item_by_name and search_project_items by the path-based matching semantics, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling search tools (find_project_item_by_name, search_project_items, select_clips_by_pattern). The 'contains' hints at substring behaviour but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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