find_project_item_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it 'searches' but does not mention whether it returns multiple matches, the return format, or any non-destructive guarantee. The schema already mentions case-insensitive partial matching, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 concise, two sentences, and directly conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the main action and then adds a practical usage note.

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 low-complexity search tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but acceptable picture. It could improve by mentioning that multiple matches may be returned or how results are structured, but given the simple nature, it is adequate though not comprehensive.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('The name to search for (case-insensitive partial match)' and 'Filter by item type'), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'media files, sequences, or bins' loosely hints at the 'type' parameter but does not add explicit semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 tool searches for project items by name, which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists example item types (media files, sequences, bins), adding useful context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_project_items' or 'find_items_by_media_path', though the focus on name is 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 says it is 'useful for finding media files, sequences, or bins,' which implies a common use case but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so it falls short of strong usage guidance.

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