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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'gitignore-style fnmatch' hinting at pattern syntax but omits details like case sensitivity, path format, output behavior, or side effects. A more transparent description would explain what happens with no matches or how paths are resolved.

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, concise sentence front-loading the key action. However, it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating purpose and returns), but it remains efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not. The tool's behavior (e.g., returning matches or booleans) is unspecified. For a batch tool, this is a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'paths' and 'patterns' but adds no semantic detail (e.g., whether paths are absolute/relative, pattern syntax variants). The parameter names are self-explanatory but insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Match paths against glob patterns (gitignore-style fnmatch),' specifying the verb (Match), resource (paths against glob patterns), and the pattern style. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitignore_match or gitignore_check, which are gitignore-specific.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as gitignore_match. No mention of when not to use it, performance considerations, or batch size limits. The description is purely functional.

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