find_project_item_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Searches' and gives examples; it does not disclose that it is a read-only lookup, how matches are returned, whether multiple results are possible, or any other runtime behavior.

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 concise and front-loads the core action: 'Searches for project items by name.' The second sentence adds relevant use-case clarity without redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though not remarkable enough for a 5.

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 low parameter complexity, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can likely call the tool with a name. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return behavior, and the lack of differentiation from 'search_project_items' leaves a meaningful gap in an environment with many sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'name' and 'type' parameters well. The description's mention of media files, sequences, and bins loosely maps to the type enum but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: searches for project items by name. It also gives useful concrete examples of item types (media files, sequences, bins). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'search_project_items', so an agent may find the two ambiguous.

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 'Useful for finding media files, sequences, or bins' provides a clear use case and implies when this tool is appropriate. There are no exclusions or explicit references to alternatives, especially the nearly identically named 'search_project_items', so guidance is incomplete.

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