search_project_assets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: the requirement to have an active skill grant and the rejection of direct calls. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the invocation context.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second the critical prerequisite. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to know what to pass or what to expect in return. It does communicate the run_skill dependency, but lacks information on output format, filtering options, and when to prefer this tool over siblings like read_project_asset.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (kind, limit, query, scope, groupId, mimeType). While names like 'query' and 'limit' are self-evident, others like 'groupId' and 'mimeType' are left to inference, and the description says nothing about their role in filtering assets.

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 ('assets owned by the current UGCmind project'), giving specific scope. It does not explicitly mention alternative search tools, but the combination of project ownership and the run_skill prerequisite distinguishes it from siblings like search_gallery.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call run_skill first and warns that direct calls are rejected without the active skill grant/run descriptor. This provides clear usage context and a specific prerequisite, but it doesn't discuss alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling search tools.

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