find_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the tool finds files but omits critical behavior such as recursive search, handling of hidden files, case sensitivity, or return format. The agent cannot assess safety or side effects since read-only vs. write nature is not mentioned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it highly concise. However, it is under-specified, so while the brevity is admirable, it sacrifices informative content. Still, for what it says, it earns high marks on structure.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is far from complete. It lacks details on return values, default search behavior, and parameter interactions. The agent would need to rely solely on the schema, which may not convey the full operational context.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 'pattern' reference, which is already documented in the schema. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because none exist.

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 'Find files matching a pattern' uses a clear verb and resource, and the 'matching a pattern' qualifier distinguishes it from static listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_directory or search_in_files, though the pattern-based intent is clear.

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 instead of alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to tools like search_in_files (content search) or list_directory (simple listing), leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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