search_local_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. A search operation is inherently read-only, and the description implies that by saying 'search', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything. It also does not describe the return format or any side effects. Given the minimal burden for a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the action and resource, but lacks details that would help the agent use it correctly. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, does not mention what the output looks like (despite an output schema existing), and offers no examples or edge cases. An agent would struggle to call this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by enumerating valid values for the 'type' parameter, but it provides no explanation for 'query', 'library', or 'assets_only', leaving the agent to guess their semantics. This is a partial but insufficient compensation.

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 the resource (local asset library data blocks), and even lists allowed types (objects, materials, node_groups, worlds, collections, meshes, actions). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polyhaven_search or sketchfab_search, but the 'local' qualifier provides some distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_asset_libraries, import_local_asset, or other search tools. It does not state exclusions or context for choosing this search over others, leaving the agent to infer.

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