search_assets_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses interactive gallery features (thumbnails, hover previews, inline editing, rating, tagging, download), but it does not clarify whether edits persist, what permissions are required, or how results are returned (UI vs. API). This leaves important behavioral implications unstated.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by a concise bulleted feature list and a usage note. It is somewhat verbose but every bullet adds specific functionality context. It avoids redundancy and is easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the visual-gallery purpose and usage context, but it does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how the interactive gallery is delivered to the user. These are significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general search and visual browsing context, so it does not significantly compensate for the small documentation gap.

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 assets and displays them in an interactive visual gallery, distinguishing it from the sibling search_assets tool. The feature list reinforces the specific interactive browsing purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to visually browse or explore assets,' providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for differentiation.

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