Search Godot Asset Library

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'official' – no pagination behavior, result format, or any side effects are disclosed. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but this description still adds almost no value beyond 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 sentence with no filler or redundant content, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it does not make use of the space to add useful guidance.

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 has 6 parameters and operates in a crowded sibling namespace, the description is too thin to give the agent a complete picture. It does not explain what the Asset Library is, how results behave, or how this search differs from godot_find_assets. The output schema may cover return values, but the high-level context needed for correct tool selection is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable because each parameter already has a meaningful description and default values.

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') and resource ('official Godot Asset Library'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like godot_find_assets or godot_search_content, leaving potential ambiguity about scope (official online registry vs. local project content).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_find_assets or godot_get_asset_info. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so an agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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