ui_find

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

With annotations already covering the read-only/non-destructive/open-world safety profile, the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: case-insensitive matching, the max_depth=1 root+children rule, and the pagination caveat that 'each page still enumerates the requested subtree' (a notable cost implication). It omits return shape, but no output schema exists.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by depth semantics and pagination. Dense but no filler; each clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters (match modes, search_in, limit, include_info) undocumented in either place, so an agent cannot fully exploit the tool. Annotations cover safety but not the breadth of behavior needed here.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains query, under, and max_depth, but ignores match (contains/exact/prefix/glob), search_in (path/name), limit, and include_info entirely. It also says 'next_offset' while the actual parameter is 'offset', which risks confusion.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search paths or basenames, case-insensitively, within a narrow under path.' An agent can tell this is a scoped, case-insensitive path/name search. It does not differentiate from siblings like inventory_search or floater_list, and the ambiguous 'paths' framing (UI vs filesystem) is left unclarified.

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?

It gives operational usage hints ('max_depth=1 includes root and children', 'Follow next_offset for more results') but never states when to use this tool versus an alternative such as inventory_search. Usage is implied through mechanics rather than explicit selection guidance.

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