find_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: fuzzy matching via Levenshtein distance and ranked (not exact) results, which tells the agent to expect approximate hits. It omits whether the search is recursive or limited to basePath, how ranking is ordered, whether misses return empty or error, and whether the operation touches the filesystem beyond reading — notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with purpose front-loaded and the behavioral detail (typo tolerance, ranked output) immediately following. Every clause conveys information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how matching works, and that results are ranked. Minor residual ambiguity about search scope (recursive vs. single level) and result contents keeps it short of full completeness.

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 100%, including the basePath default of the home directory, so the structured schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no format, casing, or matching-scope detail about folderName or basePath beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fuzzy-search for a folder by name') and adds the matching mechanism ('Levenshtein distance') plus return behavior ('ranked matches'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like scan_directory or analyze_folder, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus scan_directory or analyze_folder, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The only signal is the implied 'find a folder by partial name', which the agent has to infer from the verb.

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