find_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state idempotency or safety (e.g., read-only), though 'Search' implies non-destructiveness. The parameter defaults (recursive=true, max_results=200) are disclosed, but no error or permission information is given.

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 description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an 'Args' list. It is not overly verbose; every parameter explanation is useful. Minor improvement could be trimming the list of examples for class_type, but overall it earns its length and is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects for usage. It explains each parameter's semantics and defaults. Since an output schema exists (indicated by context signals), the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides rich semantics: examples for class_type (shortcuts and 'PackagePath.ClassName'), path ('/Game/Materials'), name_pattern (case-insensitive substring match), and explains defaults for recursive and max_results. This is far beyond what the schema offers (type + default only).

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 clearly states 'Search the Asset Registry by class, path, and/or name pattern.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (Asset Registry), and criteria (three dimensions). The tool is well-distinguished from siblings like 'list_assets' or 'find_references' which have different purposes.

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 details the parameters and their defaults, enabling the agent to understand how to tailor searches. It implies usage via the search criteria but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'list_assets' or 'find_references'. However, the context is clear for a filtered-search tool.

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