laserfiche_entry_search_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this is a convenience wrapper that builds the LF:Name/LF:LookIn clause, scopes matching to names only, and returns the same shape and error contract as search_entries. This goes beyond the schema, though it leaves auth/rate-limit details unstated.

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 short, purposeful paragraphs: a clear one-line summary, a compact explanation of the wrapper behavior and the search_content exclusion, and a brief note about return shape and error contract. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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?

The params are fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and the description covers behavior, limitations, and the main alternative. Some extra context about when to prefer laserfiche_entry_search or laserfiche_entry_search_natural would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.

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 name_pattern, in_folder_path, and max_results thoroughly. The description adds the conceptual mapping to LF:Name and LF:LookIn clauses, but does not meaningfully explain parameter syntax beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find entries by name pattern, optionally scoped to a folder path.' It further distinguishes itself by stating it matches names only and pointing to search_content for contents, so an agent can separate it from the nearby search tools without ambiguity.

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 clear context: it is a convenience wrapper over search_entries and should be used for name-pattern matching. It explicitly says not to use it for document contents and names search_content as the alternative. It does not explicitly contrast with laserfiche_entry_search or laserfiche_entry_search_natural, but the name-pattern scope makes the intended use fairly clear.

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