Search game objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it searches across every module, supports Chinese (简体中文) name matching, and specifies the exact return line format, which is valuable given no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the scope and matching behavior are front-loaded and the return-format sentence earns its place by compensating for the absent output schema.

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 broad read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape and notes cross-module and multilingual matching. It is nearly complete, though it omits default result caps and paging interplay that the schema handles separately.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the id/name/attribute-filter dimension, adding no syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (Searches) and resource (every module's XML objects), then enumerates the object families covered. This clearly distinguishes it from single-object retrieval tools like get_object and reference tools like find_references.

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?

It notes query is optional when type/where is given, implying filter-based search, and the schema notes default module scope. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as list_types, get_object, or find_references, leaving the routing to inference.

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