find_file

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context: searches across all archives, reports destinations with status, and specifies substring matching. No contradictions, and the description enhances understanding of behavior beyond annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and scope, then elaborates on the use case and matching behavior. Well-structured and concise.

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 explains return value: the archive and destination details with status. Parameters are well-documented. Missing details like pagination or error handling, but sufficient for a simple find 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining the query parameter is a filename or path fragment and that matching is case-insensitive substring. This clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'file', and the scope 'across EVERY archive'. It explains what is reported: archive name and destination details with status. This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like list_archive_files or archive_detail.

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 explains the tool answers 'is <filename> saved, and where?' and describes the matching behavior (case-insensitive substring). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear and context is provided.

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