search_project_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It only restates the filter capabilities without revealing performance characteristics, default behavior (e.g., no pagination info), or side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover case-insensitivity, but the main description adds negligible behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It avoids redundancy, though a brief structured list could marginally improve scannability without adding bulk.

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 has 6 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format ('full details'), result ordering, default max_results, or behavior when no filters are applied. This leaves ambiguity for complex queries, though the schema fills some gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps some parameters to human-readable concepts (name, extension, offline status, color label) but omits item_type and max_results. This adds minor value beyond the schema, but does not fully compensate for the omitted parameters.

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 using multiple filter criteria (name, extension, offline status, color label) and returns full details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like find_project_item_by_name or list_project_items, which would enhance clarity.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusive conditions, or comparisons with other search tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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