ue_search_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the tool searches the registry and returns paths, but does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, case sensitivity, or whether filters combine with AND/OR. No contradictions, but the description adds only moderate detail.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff and clearly states what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor weakness is the vague 'etc.', but it does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (asset paths) and why they are useful. Minor gaps exist around search semantics (e.g., substring vs exact match, filter combination), but these are not critical for a search tool. The description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100% with parameter descriptions for query, limit, pathFilter, and classFilter. The description adds a light mapping ('by name, path, or class') to the parameters, but does not elaborate on how filters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource ('project's asset registry') and search criteria ('by name, path, or class'). It also mentions the return type ('asset paths') making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_asset_data or describe_object.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Useful for finding meshes, materials, blueprints, textures, etc.') and notes that returned paths can be used with other tools, implying a search-then-use flow. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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