search_by_curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Find' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the parameter 'folder' hints at search scoping, but it does not disclose whether the search is case-sensitive, what happens when no matches are found, or other behavioral details. The output schema may cover return format, but behavioral traits beyond that are not addressed.

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 compact: one clear summary sentence followed by a structured parameter list. Every word earns its place, and the format makes it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose and arguments.

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?

For a simple search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics adequately. It is reasonably complete, though it could add a note about when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., search_by_notify), and might mention default behavior when curve_type is null. Overall, it is sufficient for a low-complexity 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 schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter's purpose and provides concrete type examples for curve_type ('float', 'vector', 'transform'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema titles, though 'folder' could be more precise about its path format.

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 states 'Find animations containing a specific curve,' which combines a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('animations'), and search target ('curve'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_by_notify and search_by_slot, which search by different entity types.

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 implies usage by defining the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_animations or search_by_notify. The parameter list provides context but lacks direct comparative guidance or exclusion criteria, so the usage context is only implied.

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