find_large_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool scans files, counts lines, and returns the largest files over a threshold. It does not mention non-destructive nature (e.g., read-only), but the behavior is well-described.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then lists parameters and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema implied by the description, the description is nearly complete. It might benefit from specifying whether directory scanning is recursive or not, but overall provides sufficient context.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (path, threshold_lines, top_n) with default values and purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles.

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 purpose: 'Flag source files that are unusually large — often a signal they're due for a refactor or split.' It uses a specific verb ('flag') and resource ('source files'), and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other aspects like todos, git logs, or repo stats.

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 when to use (when files are candidates for refactoring) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. However, it effectively communicates the context of use.

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