Asset Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact remote endpoint queried and the fact that execution is host-side, i.e. it makes an outbound HTTP call with no Maya session required. Rate limits or error behavior from the remote API are not mentioned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then endpoint and safety traits. No filler or repetition 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out; the description still notes that matching asset metadata is returned. Combined with full schema coverage and complete annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only the handoff to asset_import left implicit.

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 query, limit and asset_type are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the asset_import caveat for models. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 (the Poly Haven CC0 asset index) and immediately scopes it as host-side with no Maya dependency, which separates it from the Maya-bound siblings. It does not explicitly name asset_import as the alternative for actually pulling assets into the scene, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'pure lookup' and 'no Maya needed' implies the discovery use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over asset_import or what to do after finding an asset. Usage is inferable rather than specified.

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