sg_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only search operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences plus a list of operators, efficiently conveying scope and syntax. It front-loads the purpose. Minor improvement: could be more compact without the list, but overall concise.

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 (not shown) which likely documents return values, so description need not cover that. However, the description omits details like pagination (limit mentioned only in schema) and error behavior. Still adequate for a search tool with well-structured input schema.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (limit, order, fields, filters, entity_type, add_project_filter), so the description adds little new value. It repeats the filter syntax and entity type list, but those are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is lowered due to redundancy and lack of additional semantic clarity.

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 the action ('Search') and resource ('any entity in ShotGrid'). It lists numerous entity types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, update, or download. No other sibling tool provides generic search, making purpose highly distinct.

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 implies the tool is for searching all entity types and provides filter syntax, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. No sibling alternatives for search exist, so the omission is less critical, but still no 'when not to use' or 'prerequisites' are stated.

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