search_project_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a search operation, but it does not explain whether the search is recursive, what fields are searched, whether it selects items, or what it returns. 'Expanded operation' is too vague to count as meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 short but under-specified rather than concisely informative. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler, and 'search project items' merely repeats the name, so the sentence does not earn its place through added value.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a highly generic schema, so the description must carry the full context. It fails to define the search scope, criteria, result format, or its relationship to the many similar sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke this 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?

The input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate, although the description could still have clarified expected free-form query properties given additionalProperties is true.

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 restates the tool name almost exactly: 'search project items' adds no new meaning beyond the identifier. The qualifier 'expanded operation' is vague and does not specify what makes this search different from any other search tool.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_project_item_by_name, list_project_items, or find_items_by_media_path. 'Expanded operation' hints at a broader scope but does not state concrete use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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