find_items_by_media_path

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 basic action without any details about side effects, performance, case sensitivity, search scope (e.g., recursive or exact match), or return format. The agent cannot anticipate important details like whether it returns a list or modifies state.

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 sentence that is not overly verbose, but it packs all information into one line without any structural separation. It is concise enough but could be expanded with front-loaded key information without becoming unwieldy.

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 simple search tool with one parameter, the description omits crucial context such as what is returned (a list of items?), how results are ordered, and whether the search is case-sensitive. With no output schema to compensate, this gap makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 parameter 'path_search' has a description in the schema ('Partial file path to search for') which covers its meaning. The tool description reinforces that it's a substring match ('contains'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value 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 verb 'find' and the resource 'project items', and specifies the filter criterion 'media path contains the given search string'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_project_item_by_name' by focusing on media path rather than name. However, 'media path' is somewhat ambiguous (could refer to file path or project path), preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'search_project_items', 'find_project_item_by_name'). There is no mention of when it is appropriate or not, and no instructions on prerequisites or limitations. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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