glob

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: it skips symlinks and common generated directories, and it does not parse .gitignore. It does not explain what 'common generated directories' includes or how results are ordered, but the key filtering caveats are disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words, and the core purpose and key caveats are front-loaded.

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 read-only file-finding tool, the description covers core behavior and important exclusions, but it leaves gaps around the path and limit parameters and does not state what the returned file paths look like.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that matching uses shell-style patterns and relative paths, but it never explains the path parameter or the limit parameter, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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: find files via shell-style matching on relative paths. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as grep or tree.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Find files,' but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives such as grep for content search or tree for directory listing.

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