search_project_items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully established. The description adds return-shape context ('Returns matching items with full details') but does not specify what 'full details' includes, nor mention ordering, pagination, or performance characteristics. With annotations shouldering the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb 'Search' and lists the search dimensions; the second sentence states the return behavior. Every phrase contributes information, and there is no unnecessary repetition of the tool name or schema content.

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 read-only tool with six optional parameters, full schema documentation, and robust annotations, the description is largely complete. The main gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation among find_project_item_by_name, find_items_by_media_path, and search_project_context, and the absence of an output schema means the phrase 'full details' is vague about what fields will be returned. Solid overall, but slightly short of exemplary.

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%: every one of the six parameters has a descriptive comment covering case-insensitive substring matching for query, extension format ('Without dot'), enum values with default, color label range, max_results default, and offline_only semantics. The description only echoes these filter dimensions (name, extension, offline, color) without adding new syntactic or format details, so the baseline of 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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('project items') and enumerates four distinct filter dimensions: name, media file extension, offline status, and color label. This multi-criteria framing clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like find_project_item_by_name and find_items_by_media_path. The second sentence clarifies the output contract ('Returns matching items with full details').

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?

Usage is implied by the filter criteria listed — an agent can infer this is for filtered searches rather than listing all items — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. Given overlapping siblings such as list_project_items, find_project_item_by_name, find_items_by_media_path, and search_project_context, explicit exclusion or alternative guidance would materially improve selection accuracy. No misleading guidance, but no direct orientation either.

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