Поиск ресурсов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing what is returned (uid, размер, признак импорта) and that mode=references scans text files, but it says nothing about the 2000-item limit, pagination, or how each mode behaves.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary search behavior and appending the references capability second. No filler, though the parenthetical type list makes the first sentence dense.

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 7-parameter tool with 0 required params, no output schema, and only 57% schema coverage, the description covers the search and references paths but leaves the `info` mode, default directory, limit behavior and meta inclusion unexplained. Adequate but with clear 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?

With 57% schema description coverage, the description roughly meets the baseline and adds real value for `type` by enumerating concrete Godot resource classes (Texture2D, PackedScene, Script, AudioStream, Font, Shader) beyond the schema's single example. But `mode`, `limit`, `include_meta` and `query` receive no semantic explanation in either place, and the undocumented `info` mode is never mentioned.

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?

Names a specific verb (поиск) and resource (ассеты проекта) and enumerates the two axes of search (имя/путь и тип ресурса), plus the returned attributes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like godot_files or godot_resource, so an agent must guess which tool owns file/resource lookup.

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 hints at a second usage path ("Дополнительно mode=references находит..."), which implies when the references mode applies, but it never states when to prefer search vs info vs references, nor how this tool relates to godot_files/godot_resource. Usage is only implied.

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