search_project_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates what the search does. It says nothing about the return shape, pagination, whether results are flat or nested by bin, or any auth/rate constraints, which is thin for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though the version-pinning to '2019' adds a detail of questionable value for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior plus return expectations. It covers scope and match criteria but omits what a match actually returns, which matters for a search tool whose whole purpose is producing a result set.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the case-insensitive substring semantics. The description's 'by name or file path' restates the query parameter rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (search), the resources it covers (media items, bins, sequences), the scope (inside the open Premiere Pro 2019 project), and the match fields (name or file path). It is clear but never differentiates itself from the sibling list_project_items, which covers overlapping ground.

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 phrase 'inside the open Premiere Pro 2019 project' implies the project must be open, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as list_project_items or get_selected_project_items. The agent is left to infer the situation.

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