search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the search is recursive and starts from the current working directory, but omits important behavioral details such as whether hidden files are included, case sensitivity, or any side effects. While a search is intuitively read-only, the description does not explicitly confirm safety or resource implications.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences and an Args block that defines the only parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition; it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the fundamental operation and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details about return value structure or filtering behaviors, and does not position the tool relative to siblings. The context signal indicates an output schema exists, so return format may be documented elsewhere, but the description itself is thin.

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 description adds a clear explanation for the 'keyword' parameter: 'String to search for in filenames.' This goes beyond the bare schema definition, which only specifies the type as string. The phrase 'contain the keyword' clarifies that it is a substring match, though it does not specify case sensitivity.

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 tool's function: 'Recursively search for files whose names contain the keyword.' It specifies the target (files), the criterion (name contains keyword), and scope (recursive from current working directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or read_file.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or preconditions for usage, and only states the operational context of searching from the current directory. It does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over list_files or read_file.

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