Search Project Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds only that matching items are returned 'with full details,' which is thin; it says nothing about the default 100-result cap, truncation behavior, or result ordering.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the tool's purpose and return behavior front-loaded. Every clause 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 the description need not explain return values, and all parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema. The only shortfall is the unmentioned default capability/limit of max_results, which an agent might want to know before calling.

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 all six parameters including defaults and the enum for item_type. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('project items') and enumerates the filterable dimensions (name, extension, offline status, color label). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as find_project_item_by_name, list_project_items, or select_clips_by_pattern, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. With many overlapping sibling tools (find_project_item_by_name, list_project_items, search_project_context, select_clips_by_name), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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