search_project_items

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, suggesting potential modification, yet the description indicates a search (read-only) operation. No side effects or behavioral traits are disclosed. The description adds no value beyond annotations; the contradiction reduces transparency.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and scope. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what 'full details' return entails, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with multiple filters, additional context on result format is needed for full completeness.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not add significant extra meaning. The natural language listing of filters matches schema, no new details.

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 multiple criteria (name, extension, offline status, color label) and returns full details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_project_item_by_name' (exact name) or 'list_project_items' (all items).

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 lists supported filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like find_project_item_by_name or list_project_items. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, though the filter conditions imply its use cases.

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