find_project_item_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and target types, but fails to mention whether it returns all matches or a single item, whether it selects the found item, how results are presented, or any side effects. The schema adds case-insensitive partial matching, but that is structured data, not description value.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place: the first states the core function, the second provides context on applicable item types.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description provides a baseline understanding. However, it omits return value semantics and does not clarify how this tool relates to overlapping siblings like search_project_items. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could be more complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents both 'name' and 'type'. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'searches' and a specific resource 'project items' with a clear scope 'by name'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_items_by_media_path (searches by media path) and search_project_items (likely more extensive) by explicitly naming the search criterion.

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 phrase 'Useful for finding media files, sequences, or bins' provides clear context on when to use this tool, aligning with the type filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_project_items for more complex searches.

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