Search game resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the search scope (vanilla AssetPackages plus mod Assets, across every module), but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or what a match looks like beyond "resource names."

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical qualifiers and enum list make the second clause dense, but every element carries information about scope or downstream use.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is adequately complete: it establishes domain, scope, and how results are consumed. It could note the return shape (rows/names with which identifiers), but that gap is minor given the annotation and schema coverage.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's kind enumeration broadly mirrors the enum values but is actually shorter than the enum (omitting animation_clip, face_animation, source), so it adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb ("searches") and resource ("resource names inside every module's asset packages") and enumerates the asset kinds covered, so the agent knows exactly what domain this touches. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings like prefab_search or search_objects, leaving some overlap to inference.

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 second sentence says where the returned names are consumed (scenes, items, materials), which implies usage but is guidance about the results, not about when to choose this tool over prefab_search or search_objects. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.

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