Search Assets / 搜索素材

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (bilingual names, asset paths, direct SVG URLs), which is a genuine behavioral detail, but it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how the default limit interacts with a broad query.

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?

The capability, filters, and return shape are front-loaded in the opening clause of each language block. The full bilingual duplication doubles the length, though that appears intentional for a Chinese/English audience and no sentence is wasted padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what results contain (bilingual names, paths, SVG URLs), and all six optional filters are covered by the schema. Only the absence of guidance about broad-vs-narrow queries and result limits keeps it short of full completeness.

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%, and each parameter carries inline documentation including enumerated example values. The description only restates the filter axes (category, subcategory, series, form) without adding semantics beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Search for scientific illustration assets in the SciGlyph library by keyword') and names the supported filter axes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sciglyph_list_by_category or sciglyph_browse_categories, but the keyword-based framing is a reasonable implicit differentiator.

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 that filtering by category/subcategory/series/form is optional, and the schema adds that an omitted query returns everything matching the filters, which implies usage. However nothing states when to prefer this over sciglyph_list_by_category, sciglyph_browse_categories, or sciglyph_get_asset.

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