godot_search_asset_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Search' aligns with the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., network dependency, rate limits, or that it returns a list). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is moderately complex (nested params object with six fields, output schema present). The description is minimal and does not mention key use-case constraints (e.g., that it requires network access, that results are paginated, or that the default sort is 'updated'). While the schema fills many gaps, the description alone leaves out sufficient context for an agent to know when and how to invoke it appropriately.

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?

Context Signal indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool description covers none of the parameters. The description gives a general idea of searchable content but offers no guidance on parameters like query, sort_by, category, or max_results. Although the JSON schema itself contains detailed descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the reported low coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('official Godot Asset Library'), and enumerates the asset types ('plugins, shaders, templates, and tools'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like godot_get_asset_details (which retrieves details) and godot_install_asset_package (which installs).

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 implies usage (searching for assets) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over godot_get_asset_details or when search is inappropriate. Usage is implicit from the action but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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