search_polyhaven_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a list with basic information but omits whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or how invalid category strings are handled. The depth is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or limits.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, a parameter list, and a one-line return description. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 simplicity (two optional parameters, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about valid categories and does not mention that 'all' is a valid asset_type. For a complete understanding, an agent would benefit from a note about cross-referencing category tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'asset_type' with allowed values (hdris, textures, models, all) and 'categories' as an optional comma-separated list. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify where valid category values come from (e.g., from 'get_polyhaven_categories').

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 'Search for assets on Polyhaven with optional filtering'. It identifies a specific verb ('search') and resource ('assets on Polyhaven'). Among sibling tools, only this and 'search_sketchfab_models' perform searches, and the description differentiates by naming Polyhaven.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_sketchfab_models' or 'get_polyhaven_categories'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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