search_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions search functionality and filter examples. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is read-only, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no filters are provided. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and filter examples. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'filters' parameter well but ignores others, lacks behavioral transparency for a search tool, and doesn't explain return values or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 but only partially does. It mentions 'metadata filters' and examples like 'filename, mime_type, processing_status, upload date range', which helps explain the 'filters' parameter. However, it doesn't address 'tenant_id', 'project_id', 'page', or 'page_size' parameters, leaving 4 of 5 parameters without semantic clarification.

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 ('search') and resource ('files') with the method ('using metadata filters'). It distinguishes from 'get_file_metadata' by focusing on search rather than retrieval, and from 'semantic_search_files' by specifying metadata-based rather than semantic search. However, it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.

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 implies usage context through 'metadata filters' and example filters, suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'semantic_search_files' or 'get_file_metadata', nor does it mention prerequisites like required parameters.

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